Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sunil Ambwani, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. Article 142 of the Constitution of India provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 31
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 32
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 33
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1.4. Display of registration numbers :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 34
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 35
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 36
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 37
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 38
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 39
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 40
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 41
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 42
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 43
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 44
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 45
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 46
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 47
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 48
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 49
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 50
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '449560',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
			'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
			'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Article 142 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '449560',
		(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs a P Verma and ors - Citation 449560 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '449560',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954',
		'appealno' => 'C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002',
		'appellant' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Contempt of Court - non-compliance of Order - Sections 2 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - contempt petition filed contending that directions issued by Supreme Court in certain Order have not been complied with by officials of State Government - purpose of Order was to identify unauthorised medical practitioners and to prosecute them - lack of will and inadequacy of efforts on part of respondents proved - innovative method required to be adopted - with consent of parties directions issued for effectively complying with Order of Supreme Court.


 - CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulations Act, (3 of 1978)  Held, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board.  The School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. Teacher employed in the School run by Cantonment Board being covered under Rule 2 (f) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 can file appeal under Rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah. LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled]. -- MAHARASHTRA EMPLOYEES OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) REGULATIONS ACT, 1978 
[Act No. 3/1978]. Sections 9 & 2(21): Jurisdiction of School Tribunal  Whether a School run by Cantonment Board is not a recognised school within the meaning of Section 2(21)? - Held, The Act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the Act shall apply to all private schools in the State whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government or not. Private school is defined in Section 2(2) of the Act as a recognised school established or administered by a Management other than the Government or a local authority. Recognised means recognised by Director, the Divisional Board or State Board. Thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four Directors, the Divisional Boards and four State Boards. The second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by Director or by any of such Boards. The question to be examined is whether school run by the Cantonment Board could be said to be one run by any such Boards. A private school has to be recognised by the State or the Divisional Board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. When this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the Director or by any such Boards, is included in the latter part of Section 2(21), such Boards will be of the level of the State Board or the Divisional Board. The Boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the Boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which Primary schools are operating. Thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the Board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. Section 2(21) of the Act defines the term recognised. The last clause therein is by any of such Boards. The term such is defined in Oxford Dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. Therefore, the term such Board will have to mean a Divisional Board of or the Level of Divisional Board or the State Board. The Divisional Board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. The State Board advises the State Government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. The Cantonment Board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other Board or body under the Cantonments Act discharging any such duties. The duties of the Cantonment Board are laid down in Section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. The Cantonment Board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. Therefore, School run by the Cantonment Board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such Board comparable to the Divisional Board or the State Board. That being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the Act. For the reasons state above, the School Tribunal constituted under Section 8 of the Act cannot entertain appeals filed under Section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the Cantonment Board. [Deolali Cantonment Board v Usha Devidas Dongre, 1993 Mah.LJ 74; 1993 Lab IC 1858 Overruled].  -  to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ;the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ;Pharmacy Act, 1948 ;Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ;Medical Termination of. 17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-01-28',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Sunil Ambwani, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.</p><p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.</p><p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.</p><p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :</p><p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'</p><p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :</p><p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :</p><p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;</p><p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;</p><p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;</p><p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' </p><p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'</p><p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'</p><p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.</p><p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.</p><p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.</p><p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :</p><p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :</p><p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.</p><p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.</p><p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.</p><p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' </p><p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.</p><p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.</p><p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.</p><p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.</p><p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.</p><p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :</p><p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :</p><p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.</p><p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.</p><p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.</p><p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.</p><p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :</p><p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.</p><p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.</p><p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'</p><p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.</p><p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.</p><p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;</p><p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.</p><p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.</p><p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.</p><p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.</p><p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.</p><p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.</p><p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.</p><p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.</p><p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.</p><p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.</p><p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'A.P. Verma and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Contempt of Court;Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '449560',
	(int) 1 => 'rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/449560/rajesh-kumar-srivastava-vs-a-p-verma-ors'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sunil Ambwani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Heard counsel for petitioner and Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned standing counsel, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sri Dinesh Kackker for interveners, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Government of U.P., Lucknow and Dr. Amrendra Singh, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P., Lucknow are present in Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. A XIIIth supplementary-affidavit of Sri Rakesh Kumar Mittal, Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of U.P. dated 15.1.2004, has been filed today, annexing Government orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by him directing all the District Magistrates, the Superintendent and Senior Superintendents of Police, and the Chief Medical Officers in U.P. to take action in pursuance of order of Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case dated 25.9.2000 and in this Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, between Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma, the then Chief Secretary, U.P. and Ors. ; to identify the unauthorised and unregistered medical practitioners and to submit fresh list of such persons to the State Government, to Initiate prosecution and to take effective steps to stop unauthorised medical practice by such persons. A letter dated 12.1.2004 of Shri Rakesh Kumar Mittal requires Principal Secretary, Home Government of U.P. to issue directions to all Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police to effectively represent the State Government in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Annexure-5 is a list of number of unauthorized medical practitioners identified so far in State ; the number of F.I.Rs. lodged, and number of cases in which the charge-sheets has been submitted in Court. This list provides information from all the 70 districts in the State of U.P. except District Sant Ravidas Nagar. The respondents have so far, in last two years since these proceedings were initiated, identified 18,856 persons practicing without any valid registration in the State of U.P. First information reports have been lodged against 4,381 such persons and charges-sheets have been submitted in 440 cases.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. In D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P., 2000 (3) AWC 1845 (SC) : 2000 (5) SCC 80, decided on 25th April, 2000, it was found by Supreme Court that the Indian Medical Council in its letter dated 3.5.1991 apprised the Secretary Medical Health, U.P. of the problem of unauthorised medical practice in the State. The Secretary was requested that the 'public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/ unregistered practitioners, and institutions which are providing Illegal degrees in the Indian System of Medicine.' The State Government was also concerned and that as far back as on 2.12.1995, the Secretary, Health and Welfare Department, U.P., addressed a letter to all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State, drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such persons. In this letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1971. The District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate action against these unauthorised persons. The Supreme Court observed in para 4 of the report as follows :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>'It is distressing to note that in spite of the above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.'',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. The writ petition was disposed of by Supreme Court with following directions :',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take following steps :',
	(int) 7 => '<p> (i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time-limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified /unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately ;',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(ii) Direct all the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings Initiated against such persons ;',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity to the names of such unqualified/ unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.' ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>5. A Contempt Petition No. 292 of 2001 was filed by Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Reporter of National Daily 'Rastriya Sahara' drawing the attention of the Apex Court that the directions passed by the Court have not been complied with by the officials of the State Government. By an order dated 8.10.2001, the contempt petition was dismissed with the following directions.'',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'It is appropriate for the petitioner to move the High Court for the relief sought for. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly.'',
	(int) 13 => '<p>6. The petitioner thereafter filed this contempt petition which was registered as Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002. Notices were issued by this Court on 21.3.2002 to the respondents namely, the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, the District Magistrate, Meerut and Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 27.7.2002, directions were issued to the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health, Government of U.P. and to all the District Magistrates, Chief Medical Officers as well as Director General of Information and Public Relations Department, Director, Medical Care, Government of U.P. as well as Officiating Director General, Medical Health of U.P. On 5.8.2002, all the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State were impleaded as parties and were required to take action.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>7. Since thereafter, the Court is monitoring the matter. The successive Principal Secretaries, Medical Health, Government of U.P. have filed supplementary-affidavits including the action taken on reports of the Chief Medical Officers. The Court by its order dated 5.8.2002 also directed the Director General of Police and Director General of Prosecution to submit their reports. Interventions were also made on behalf of D.K. Joshi, Shiba Jose and Indian Association of Pathologists and Microbiologists Varanasi Forums. These intervenors have also highlighted the reality that the unauthorised/unregistered medical practitioners in thousands are still nourishing in the State of U. P.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>8. During the pendency of contempt petition this Court also directed inspections of Community Health Centres at Koraon and Shankergarh at Allahabad as exemplars to verify the complaint alleging that the unauthorised practitioners are flourishing on account of wholly inadequate Primary and Secondary Medical care provided by the State Government, and that there is a close nexus between the State Government Health Machinery and the unauthorised practitioners. The report submitted by Dr. Ram Babu, Director, Medical Health, U. P., verified these assertions. It was found that the Community Health Centres are not providing adequate medical Care and the Government medical care in remote rural areas is almost absent ; the Doctors are not attending their duties, the medical equipment is either not available or is nonfunctional, the para-medical staff is wholly insensitive, and that apart from advertised Government medical and family welfare schemes, like Pulse Polio Programme, Family Welfare camps, Aids care, Blood donation camps the actual and much needed medical care is not available. Some doctors and Para Medics, managing long tenures at their postings have entered into a close nexus with unauthorised practitioners. The State Government assured the Court to make further inspections, but no follow up action was taken.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>9. The Medical Council of India was impleaded and is represented by Sri Vikram Nath. The council filed an affidavit of Shri Jagtar Singh, Assistant Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi. In respect of qualifications for running pathological laboratories the council clarified in the affidavit as follows :',
	(int) 17 => '<p>'10. It is most respectfully submitted that the following are the submissions/answers to the queries set out in para 5 above :',
	(int) 18 => '<p> (i) The minimum qualification required by persons for setting up a pathological lab and practice pathology is M.B.B.S. However, in order for a physician to claim himself to be a specialist in pathology he has to have a special qualification in pathology, i.e., either post-graduate degree or diploma.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>(ii) Persons who hold degrees of B.A.M.S. or B.H.M.S. do not fall within the purview of holding recognised degrees under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and would not be entitled to practice pathology being a part of modern medicine.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>(iii) Any person can establish a pathology laboratory. But, the said person would certainly be required and obliged to employ of a graduates of modern medicine to examine the pathological specimens and sign the certificates and reports.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>(iv) The council towardsdischarge of its statutoryresponsibilities formaintenance of higheststandards of medicaleducation have prescribednorms etc. for setting upof a medical collegehaving a teachinghospital. The norms forhospitals, beds, wards,operation theatres, etc.laboratories have beenlaid down but no separatenorms for pathology labsonly have been prescribedby the Medical Council ofIndia, i.e., forestablishment of apathological laboratory.' ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>10. In the last two years the respondents have only identified some of the unauthorised medical practitioners. It is only a tip of the ice berg. It is estimated that apart from 18,856 identified so far there are many more thousands unauthorised persons playing with the health of the population of the State. In two years the authorities have only been able to identify only 18,856 and at some places the names have been published in newspapers. Director of Information, Government of U.P. has expressed his inability to publish all the names. The State Government has put up an excuse that they do not have sufficient funds to comply with the order, and instead of publishing and prosecuting they have caused a few awkward and clumsy advertisements, warning public to visit such unauthorised persons. The effort made to initiate prosecution only against 4381 persons and charge-sheets only in 440 cases, proves the lack of will and inadequacy of efforts by the respondent.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>11. The orders passed by Supreme Court intended to curb the growing menace of unauthorised practitioners. The proceedings in this contempt in last two years petition have made it apparent that the menace cannot be effectively checked, unless and until all the establishment offering unauthorised medical care in the State of U.P. are compulsorily registered. This will exclude the black sheep and also provide a valuable data bank of the authorised private medical care in the State.',
	(int) 24 => '<p>12. In these two years, the Court has experienced, and that all the parties have suggested, that instead of chasing unauthorised persons, by process of inviting complaints and conducting raids (which was made a one time affair, with no follow up actions) the authorised medical practitioners must be identified to exclude the unauthorised persons. Whenever raids were conducted the unauthorised persons either closed their clinics or ran away. Most of them were found absent. A large number of letters have been received from the general public complaining their mischief and manner in which these persons are playing with public health. Almost every day there are reports of deaths, spoiled medical cases, blindings, etc. They are also engaged in carrying out hazardous medical procedures operation to remove cataracts, caesarians, and do not fear in prescribing scheduled drugs advertise magical remedies, of which they have no knowledge.',
	(int) 25 => '<p>13. Sri R.K. Mittal, and Dr. Amrendra Singh, participated in the deliberations, and assured the Court that any effective method, which may place burden upon such unauthorised practitioners, shall be accepted and implemented by the State Government.',
	(int) 26 => '<p>14. Article 142 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> provides that Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree, or make such order as it is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The law declared by Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the <a>Constitution of India</a> and that all the authorities civil or judicial, in the territory of India, under Article 144 have been mandated to act in aid of Supreme Court. The power of the Supreme Court under this Article is meant to supplement the existing legal framework-to do complete Justice between the parties and not to supplant it. It is conceived to meet the situations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law. The Article provides that the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter', which would include any proceeding pending in Court and would cover almost every kind of proceeding in Court. It is residuary power, supplementary and complementary to the powers specially conferred by the Statutes to do complete justice between the parties whenever it is just and equitable to do so. It is intended to prevent any obstruction to the stream of justice. It can grant relief even to a party who is not before the Supreme Court and has omitted to challenge the impugned order before the Supreme Court.',
	(int) 27 => '<p>15. The Medical Council of India has notified the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002 (Part III, Section 4, Gazette of India dated 6th April, 2002). These Regulations made under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, with previous approval of Central Government, provides a Code of Conduct, etiquette and ethics. Chapter I (B) 1.1.3, 1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records, 1.4 Display of registration numbers and 1.9 Evasion of Legal Restrictions (relevant for the matter) are quoted as below :',
	(int) 28 => '<p>'1.3. Maintenance of Medical Records :',
	(int) 29 => '<p> 1.3.1. Every physician shall maintain the medical records pertaining to his/her indoor patients for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the treatment in a standard proforma laid down by the Medical Council of India and attached as Appendix-3.',
	(int) 30 => '<p>1.3.2. If any request is made for medical records either by the patients/authorised attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and documents shall be issued within the period of 72 hours.',
	(int) 31 => '<p>1.3.3. A registered medical practitioner shall maintain a Register of Medical Certificates giving full details of certificates issued. When issuing a medical certificate he/she shall always enter the identification marks of the patient and keep a copy of the certificate. He/she shall not omit to record the signature and/or thumb mark, address and atleast one identification mark of the patient on the medical certificates or report. The medical certificate shall be prepared as in Appendix-2.',
	(int) 32 => '<p>1.3.4. Efforts shall be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> 1.4. Display of registration numbers :',
	(int) 34 => '<p> 1.4.1. Every Physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates, money receipts given to this patients.',
	(int) 35 => '<p>1.4.2. Physicians shall display as suffix to their names only recognised medical degrees or such certificates/diplomas and memberships/ honours which confer professional knowledge of recognizes any exemplary qualification / achievements.',
	(int) 36 => '<p> 1.9. Evasion of Legal Restrictions.--The physician shall observe the laws of the country in regulating the practice of medicine and shall also not assist others to evade such laws. He should be co-operative in observance and enforcement of sanitary laws and regulations in the interest of public health. A physician should observe the provisions of the State Acts like Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ; Pharmacy Act, 1948 ; Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Medical Termination of. Pregnancy Act, 1971 ; Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 ; Mental Health Act, 1987 ; Environmental Protection Act, 1994 ; Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 ; Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Biomedical Waste (Management and Handling Rules, 1998 and such other Acts. Rules and Regulations made by the Central/ State Government or local Administrative Bodies or any other relevant Act relating to the protection and promotion of public health.'',
	(int) 37 => '<p>16. The directions issued by Supreme Court in D.K. Joshi's case must be complied. The object and purpose of the order is to identify, unauthorised persons, publish their names and to prosecute them. The magnitude of the problem, the practical difficulties put forward by the respondents, and the expediency requires to adopt same innovative method. The suggestions made by the parties were deliberated and readily accepted by Shri R. K. Mittal and Dr. Amrendra Singh. They made valuable suggestions. The Regulations, 2002 of Medical Council of India, also require maintenance of records.',
	(int) 38 => '<p>17. Having the considered deliberated, and discussed the matter in detail with the officials and the counsels appearing from either side, I find that the orders passed by the Apex Court can be effectively complied, if the burden of proving the competence to practice be shifted upon all such persons engaged in private medical practice, and offering private medical care/services in the State.',
	(int) 39 => '<p>18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, and with the consent of all the parties including the senior State officials present and, including their valuable suggestions, following directions are issued, for strict compliance by all those who are concerned ;',
	(int) 40 => '<p>(1) All the Hospitals, Nursing Homes, Maternity Homes, Medical Clinics, Private Practitioners, practicing medicine and offering medical and health care services. Pathology Labs, Diagnostic Clinics ; whether run privately or by Firms, Societies. Trusts, Private limited or Public limited companies, in the State, shall register themselves with Chief Medical Officer of the district where these establishments are situate, giving full details of the medical facilities offered at these establishments, the names of the registered andauthorised medical personnelpracticing, employed orengaged by them, theirqualifications with proof oftheir registrations ; the ParaMedical staff employed orengaged and theirqualifications, on a form (foreach category) prescribed bythe Principal Secretary,Medical Health and FamilyWelfare, Government of U.P. The prescribed proforma withtrue and accurate informationshall be submitted, supportedby an affidavit of the personproviding such medicalservices or the personincharge of suchestablishment, sworn beforeNotary Public. The requiredinformation shall be submittedfor registration, by all thesepersons, on or before30.4.2004.',
	(int) 41 => '<p>(2) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P., shall publish the information requiring all these persons to obtain registrations, along with the directions given in this order, and the prescribed proforma, in all leading newspapers of the State, at least three times, in the month of February, 2004.',
	(int) 42 => '<p>(3) Any change or addition in the particulars submitted shall be notified within thirty days and that the registrations shall be renewed every year before 30th April of the year.',
	(int) 43 => '<p>(4) On and from 1.5.2004, all those persons who have not furnished the information and obtained registration with the Chief Medical Officers of the district, shall be taken to be practicing unauthorisedly and that the Chief Medical Officers, shall scrutinize and forthwith report the matter to the Superintendent/Senior Superintendent of Police of the district with information to this Court, to conduct raids and to seal the unauthorised premises/establishments. All the authorised persons/ establishments, who fail to obtain registration will have liberty to apply only to this Court to explain the delay and to seek permission to continue with their medical practice/ profession.',
	(int) 44 => '<p>(5) All those medical practitioners who desire to offer medical services in the State, in future, shall be required to submit the details in the aforesaid proforma for registration as above with the Chief Medical Officer of the district before they start medical practice.',
	(int) 45 => '<p>(6) All the institutions/ establishments/ colleges awarding medical degrees in the State shall apply and get themselves registered with the Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. with full particulars of their authorization to confer such degrees/certificates, on or before 30.4.2004.',
	(int) 46 => '<p>(7) The news papers andmagazines, published in UttarPradesh, are restrained frompublishing advertisements byand from unauthorisedmedical practitioners,publishing their claims ofquick and magical remedies.They shall require thesepersons to give proof of theirqualifications and registrations. The breach shallbe taken to aid and abetillegal activities violative ofMagic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,1954, and other relevantlegislation's.',
	(int) 47 => '<p>(8) The Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, it is directed to ensure that no Medical Officer in the Government service is posted beyond three years in any district, and that all para medical staff serving in the Primary Health Centre/ Community Health Centre/ District Hospitals and other hospitals run by Government of U.P. for more than five years, shall be transferred from that centre/hospital. Any doctor in employment of State Government offering their services to the unauthorised medical practitioners shall face immediate disciplinary action by the State Government and shall be prosecuted for aiding and abetting such unauthorised practice.',
	(int) 48 => '<p>19. These orders shall be strictly complied with. Any breach of these orders shall be treated to be contempt of the Court, and shall be punished accordingly.',
	(int) 49 => '<p>20. These directions shall not affect the earlier directions issued in this matter. The respondents shall continue to identify and prosecute unauthorised medical practitioners. There is a large gap between the identified unauthorised practitioners so far, and the prosecutions launched against them. A request has been made by standing counsel on behalf of Director General, Prosecutions, U.P. to file a reply with regard to the delay and status of the prosecutions. Let a detailed affidavit be filed by him within three weeks. All the District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers shall comply with the order of the Apex Court and the Government Orders dated 1.12.2003, 8.1.2004 and 12.1.2004 issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, U.P. Government, Lucknow. They shall continue to identify, advertise and prosecute the unauthorised practitioners. They shall be held personally responsible for unauthorised practitioners practicing in their areas.',
	(int) 50 => '<p>21. List on 16.2.2004 for further orders and hearing in the matter of Unauthorised Pathology Laboratories at Varanasi, and the contempt proceedings drawn against Dr. A. K. Dubey. A copy of the order shall be supplied to chief standing counsel for compliance.<p>',
	(int) 51 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 52
$i = (int) 51
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Contempt of Court;Constitution
Court	Allahabad High Court
Decided On	Jan-28-2004
Case Number	C.M. Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002
Judge	Sunil Ambwani, J.
Reported in	2004(2)AWC967; 2005(2)ESC857
Acts	Constitution of India - Articles 141 and 142; Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics), Regulations, 2002; Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections 2 and 12; Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954
Appellant	Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Respondent	A.P. Verma and ors.
Appellant Advocate	Shashi Nandan, ;U.N. Sharma, ;Sujeet Kumar and ;K.P. Bajpai, Advs.
Respondent Advocate	H.P. Singh, ;J.P. Sharma, ;Vikram Nath, ;Pankaj Naqvi, ;Dinesh Kockker, Advs. and ;R.B. Pradhan, S.C and ;S.C.

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. A.P. Verma and ors. - Court Judgment