Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1175 (CAL)

Subhas Chandra Das v. West Bengal Medical Council

2011-08-25

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. THE Court : THE petitioner in this art.226 petition dated August 12, 2011 is seeking the following principal relief: (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities and/or their men, agents, servants and/or assigns to forthwith to restore the registration of the petitioner as a Doctor with effect from 03.03.2003 in the register of West Bengal Medical Council and to cause publish his name in Calcutta Gazette as per the Bengal Medical Act, 1914. 2. THE petitioner was a registered practitioner within the meaning of s.2(c) of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914. His name was removed by the Council from the register of registered practitioners in exercise of power conferred on the Council by s.25(a)(ii) of the Act. Clause (a) of s.25 of the Act provides that in the cases mentioned in sub-cls.(i) and (ii) thereof the Council may direct that the name of any registered practitioner be removed from the register of registered practitioners or that the practitioner be warned. Sub-clause (ii) of cl.(a) of s.25 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 is quoted below: (ii) whom the Council, after due inquiry in the same manner as provided in clause (b) of section 17, have found guilty by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting at the meeting, of infamous conduct in any professional respect. It has been stated in para.3 that the Council had directed removal of the petitioners name from the register of registered practitioners for a period of six months with effect from the afternoon of September 3, 2002. Correctness of this fact is not disputed. 3. BY a letter dated June 6, 2011 (at p.34) the office of the Council has informed the petitioner that in terms of a decision of the Council dated May 10, 2011 taken under s.25(b) of the Act his name has been re-entered in the register. In the certificate of registration it has been recorded that the name has been restored on 10.5.2011. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Council dated May 10, 2011 in the sense that though, according to him, the Council was under an obligation to re-enter his name in the register with effect from March 3, 2003 when the six-month punishment period expired, it wrongfully decided to re-enter his name in the register only with effect from May 10, 2011. 4. 4. MR Bhowmik appearing for the Council submits that the petitioners remedy, if any, was an appeal under s.26 of the Act. His further submission is that, on the facts, the Council was justified in re-entering the petitioners name in the register with effect from May 10, 2011. Mr. Sengupta appearing for the State submits that in view of the case stated in para.5 that seeking restoration of his name with effect from March 3, 2003 the petitioner previously filed a petition under art.226, this petition is not maintainable. He, however, does not say that the petitioner has no right to appeal against the decision of the Council dated May 10, 2011. Section 26 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 is quoted below: 26. (1) An appeal shall lie to the Local Government from every decision of the Council under section 17 or section 25. (2) Every appeal under the sub-section (1) shall be preferred within three months from the date of such decision. Clause (b) of s.25 of the Bengal Medical Act, 1914 empowered the Council to reenter the petitioners name in the register, in view of the fact that his name had been removed from the register in exercise of power conferred on the Council by the provisions of sub-cl.(ii) of cl.(a) of s.25. 5. IN the letter dated June 6, 2011 it has been specifically stated that the decision of the Council to re-enter the petitioners name in the register was taken under s.25(b) of the Act. Hence I accept the argument that the petitioners remedy, if any, was an appeal under s.26 of the Act. 6. IN view of the provisions of sub-s.(2) of s.26 of the Act, the petitioner could appeal against the decision of the Council dated May 10, 2011 within three months from the date of the decision. Admittedly, the decision taken by the Council remained in file until the letter dated June 6, 2011 was issued by its office. By the letter the office of the Council communicated the decision to the petitioner. Hence the question is whether the period of three months for lodging an appeal started from May 10, 2011. Mr. Bhowmik and Mr. Admittedly, the decision taken by the Council remained in file until the letter dated June 6, 2011 was issued by its office. By the letter the office of the Council communicated the decision to the petitioner. Hence the question is whether the period of three months for lodging an appeal started from May 10, 2011. Mr. Bhowmik and Mr. Sengupta have agreed that since the decision dated May 10, 2011 remained confined to the file of the Council till June 6, 2011, it cannot be said that the decision had taken effect before June 6, 2011 when the letter communicating it to the petitioner was issued. According to them, the period of three months for lodging an appeal against the decision started from June 6, 2011. 7. IT is, therefore, evident that the petitioner has still time to lodge an appeal against the decision of the Council dated May 10, 2011. In my opinion, he should be relegated to the appellate authority. For these reasons, I dispose of the petition saying that the petitioner is free to appeal against the decision of the Council dated May 10, 2011 within three months from June 6, 2011. No costs.