ORDER The petitioner is an Opthalimic Surgeon and he conducted eye operations in Avadhuta Eye Hospital, Bhadrachalam. He is a registered Medical Practitioner recognized by the Medical Council of India and registered with the A.P. State Medical Council. Alleging that the petitioner conducted as many as 83 IOL cataract operations in his hospital between 10.04.2004 to 12.04.2004 and out of the same, 17 cases were found got infected, the Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, the first respondent herein, passed an order, dated 14.04.2004, directing that the petitioner be black-listed with immediate effect. He was also barred from conducting any cataract or eye surgeries until further orders. The first respondent further directed that the petitioner must bear the expenditure incurred for the treatment of 17 patients at Sarojinidevi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad. The said proceedings are challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner contends that his activities are governed by the Medical Council of India and the A.P. State Medical Council and the first respondent has absolutely no jurisdictional power in this regard. 3. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent. 4. Ms. Bharathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered with the Medical Council of India as well as the A. P. State Medical Council and in case any acts or omissions, in contravention of the relevant provisions of law are attributed, the proceedings under relevant enactments have to be initiated by the agency concerned. She contends that the first respondent has absolutely no concern with the activities of the petitioner, much less the Jurisdiction, to pass an order directing black-listing. She further contends that even under the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder, the penalties Imposed through the impugned order are not contemplated. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, on the other hand, submits that for an integrated development in the scheduled areas, the powers of various departments or organizations are conferred upon the Project Director. He places reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.274, dated 15.06.2002. 6. The first respondent took note of the tact that the petitioner conducted 83 cataract operations in his hospital at Bhadrachalam in three days in the month of April, 2004. It was alleged that 43 operations were conducted on 10.04.2004. He places reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.274, dated 15.06.2002. 6. The first respondent took note of the tact that the petitioner conducted 83 cataract operations in his hospital at Bhadrachalam in three days in the month of April, 2004. It was alleged that 43 operations were conducted on 10.04.2004. According to the first respondent, at the most, 15 to 20 operations can be performed by an Opthalmist and that the petitioner had deviated from the norms. An allegation is also made as to the improper sterilization of the operation theatre. With these and other allied allegations, the first respondent directed that (a) the petitioner be black-listed with Immediate effect in public interest; (b) the petitioner be barred from conducting any cataract or other surgeries or eye tests till further orders: and (c) that he shall be liable to bear the expenditure that is incurred for treatment of the patients who are said to have been infected at the post operation stage. 7. The first respondent did not make reference to any provision of law, under which he acted. Various human activities are governed by different enactments. The Legislatures concerned confer corresponding powers upon different agencies and even provide for hierarchy of remedies. If the Legislature itself feels that the powers under an enactment can be delegated to or conferred upon certain other agencies also, necessary provisions are made enabling such conferment or delegation. 8. The Act and the Rules made thereunder regulate the medical profession by prescribing the standards and procedures. In case, a registered Medical Practitioner is found deviating from the prescribed procedure, specified agency would initiate action. Before any penalty is imposed or any adverse order is passed, enquiry has to be conducted, duly giving opportunity to the affected parties. 9. It is not even suggested that there is any provision in the Act and the Rules made thereunder that confers power of any kind what-so-ever, upon the first respondent. Further, it is Just un-imaginable as to how the powers that are to be exercised by a specialized agency, comprising of qualified persons in the respective fields, can be conferred upon an administrator pure and simple. G.O.Ms.No.274, dated 1506.2002, is not referable to any provision of law, much less, to the Act and the Rules. At the most, it may have conferred the administrative powers vested in different authorities, in the Project Director. G.O.Ms.No.274, dated 1506.2002, is not referable to any provision of law, much less, to the Act and the Rules. At the most, it may have conferred the administrative powers vested in different authorities, in the Project Director. However, the first respondent cannot assume to himself the powers under special enactments 10. The impugned order could not have been passed, even by an agency created under the act and the rules made thereunder. No show cause notice was issued nor any reference is made to the relevant provisions of law, The punishments are very drastic and they had the effect of completely crippling the activity of the petitioner as well as branding him as inefficient. If at all the petitioner had deviated from any stipulated norms, the first respondent, could, at the most have brought the same, to the notice of the concerned agency, 11. Further, the impugned order had the effect of tarnishing the image of the petitioner. apart from causing financial and professional damage to him. The first respondent had, assumed to himself, the stature of an expert and recorded findings of tar reaching nature. People in the locality would certainly be carried away by such observations, In competitive profession like medicine, the impact is bound to be phenomenal. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 12, The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable by the first respondent to the petitioner. The amount shall be paid within three (3) months from today. In default, the petitioner shall be entitled to initiate execution proceedings against the first respondent.