 for simplifying the process of registration of private medical establishments under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 3 2007.){kind=link}
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with the prayer to quash the circular issued by the Commissioner Health and Family Welfare services (respondent no.1) for simplifying the process of registration of private medical establishments under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 3 2007.
The circular dated 17.08.2020 , has been questioned by the petitioner on the ground that the said circular has the effect of causing loss of revenue to the Government and also on the ground that respondent no.1 is not the authority to dispense with the license/documents which has been dispensed with, in the impugned circular.
Vijayanthimala B , Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.1 is not the authority to issue the trade license, and therefore, he could not have dispensed obtaining a trade license by the medical establishments. She also submitted that the dispensation of production of occupancy certificates is also likely to result in the medical establishments occupying buildings which are not constructed in accordance with law and which are not suitable to be occupied.
Per contra, Prathima Honnapura , Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing for the respondents has submitted that the circular has been issued only to simplify the process of registration of medical establishments under the Act of 2007 and obtaining the trade license, occupancy certificate, etc., by the medical establishments have not been dispensed with.
The AGA further submitted that what has been dispensed with is production of such documents for the purpose of registration under the Act of 2007.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S. Vishwajith on reading of the impugned circular noted show that on the basis of the suggestions received from various establishments for simplifying the process of registration of medical establishments under the Act of 2007 and after holding meetings with the concerned, the impugned circular has been issued by respondent no.1.
On a plain reading of the impugned the Court further noted that the said circular has been issued for simplifying the process of registration and it does not provide for dispensation of the requirement to obtain the trade license, occupancy certificate, etc., from the competent authorities.
For the purpose of registration of private medical establishments under the Act of 2007, the registering authority is required to consider the following prerequisites:
i) That the premises housing the Private Medical Establishment is located in hygienic surroundings and otherwise suitable for the purpose for which it is established or sought to be established;
ii) That the Private Medical Establishment is adequately staffed with qualified doctors, qualified and trained para medical personnel;
iii) That the Private Medical Establishment has the necessary buildings with adequate space for performing its various functions, equipments and other infrastructure facilities;
iv) That the Private Medical Establishment conforms to the standards referred to in Section 9;
v) Such other facts as may be prescribed.
The respondents in their statement of objections have stated that the question of insisting for trade license and occupancy certificate does not fall within the domain of the Health & Family Welfare Department at the time of registration and renewal of private medical establishments and as such, they are not insisting for production of the said documents at the time of registration and renewal of the private medical establishments.
It is also stated that the trade license and occupancy certificates are to be issued by the local bodies in whose jurisdiction the private medical establishments exists and by issuing the impugned circular, the requirement of obtaining the requisite license from the competent authority is not dispensed with.
The High Court held that Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to what the hardship or injury is that would be caused to the public in view of the impugned circular and the Counsel for the Petitioner has also failed to point out to the Court that the impugned circular is issued in contravention of any statutory provisions.
The Court do not find any element of public interest in the PIL and therefore the Court is of of the considered view that the petition is devoid of any merits and dismissed the PIL.