H.K. Chopra Vs. the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the.....order1. malacious intent is what this petition smacks of. the petitioner who claims himself to be a social worker and journalist seeks to question the eligibility of respondent no. 6 dr. j. b. dilawari, to be registered as a medical practitioner and consequently his competence to hold the post of associate proffessor at the p6st graduate institute ofmedical education and research, chandigarh. on the same cause of action, having earlier filed a criminal complaint against dr. dilawari, which was dismissed on february 10, 1989, against which a criminal revision filed by the petitioner in june 1989 is still pending in this court, he has now resorted to these proceedings under art. 226 of the constitution of india.2. at the very out-set, it would, however, be pertinent to list out the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Malacious intent is what this petition smacks of. The petitioner who claims himself to be a social worker and journalist seeks to question the eligibility of respondent No. 6 Dr. J. B. Dilawari, to be registered as a Medical Practitioner and consequently his competence to hold the post of Associate Proffessor at the P6St Graduate Institute ofMedical Education and Research, Chandigarh. On the same cause of action, having earlier filed a criminal complaint against Dr. Dilawari, which was dismissed on February 10, 1989, against which a criminal revision filed by the petitioner in June 1989 is still pending in this Court, he has now resorted to these proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. At the very out-set, it would, however, be pertinent to list out the qualifications of Dr. J. B. Dilawari. These being:--

1.Arztiche Prufung (MBBS) MunichUniversity, Germany 1962

2. M. D. Munich University 1966

(This Degree is recognized by the Medical Council of India and is included in para 2 of the Second Schedule of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956)

3. M. R. C. P. (London) 1970

4. L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S. (London) 1971

(Both M.R.C.P. (London) and L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S. (London) are also medical qualifications recognized by the Medical Council of India and are also mentioned in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956).

5. F.R.C.P. (London)from Royal College of Physicians.

6. R.A.M.S. from National Academy of Medical Sciences (India).

3. It will be seen that these qualifications amply and in fact far exceed the requisite, to render Dr. Dilawari eligible for registration under the relevant statutory provisions.

4. What is more, according to S. 13 of the Punjab Medical Registration Act, 1916, every person who is registered or qualified to be registered under the British Medical Act is also entitled to be registered under this Act. As would be apparent from annexure R-6/7, the certificate from the General Medical Council, London, Dr. Dilawari stands registered with the British Medical Council since May 21, 1971. This has also been So accepted by the Punjab Medical College in their Communication, annexure R-6/7 to the Medical Council of India.

5. Such being the situation, no exception can indeed be taken to the registration of Dr. J. B. Dilawari as a Medical Practitioner under the Punjab Medical Registration Act, 1916.

6. Turning to the role and conduct of the petitioner in this matter, the circumstances and the background, as adverted to in the return filed by respondent 6 and the other material on record, do indeed lend credence to the contention of Mr. V. K. Bali, counsel for respondent 6 that in the context of the likely early filling up of the post of professor, on the appointment to it, of Dr. Saroj Mehta having been set aside by the Court, in the garb of public interest litigation, this entire exercise was designed to help the interests of Dr. Dilawari's rivals for this post, by seeking to block his candidature by this device. Seen in this light, the present proceedings cannot, but be branded as vexatious.

7. We accordingly hereby dismiss this writ petition and impose Rs. 5,000/-(Rs. Five thousand only) as punitive costs upon the petitioner.

8. Petition dismissed.