Judgment :- 1. The case of the first petitioner is that he has obtained a Degree in M.B.B.S. and M.S., General Surgery and is presently pursuing his DNB (Surgical Gastro Enterology) Course at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. That he is a registered Medical Practitioner enrolled in terms of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the “State Act”). 2. The second petitioner is also a Doctor specialized in Surgical Gastroenterology and has obtained M.B.B.S., and a Post Graduation in Surgery and registered as a Medical Practitioner in terms of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Act”). 3. The 3rd petitioner is the Head of the Department of Gastroenterology in Vikram Hospital, Mysore, who is a Medical Practitioner registered in terms of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 4. On 30-9-2007 the second respondent came to Vikram Hospital, Mysore with a complaint of pain in the right lower quadrant since morning and associated with sweating. He was first seen by the Casualty Medical Officer who were in the Hospital and a case history was recorded. He was advised abdominal scanning. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of admission, the 2nd respondent along with his wife and guardian were explained in detail about the medical condition and after obtaining the consent of both the second respondent and his wife, the second petitioner decided to do an open Appendisectomy surgery which was conducted. The second respondent was discharged on 4-10-2007. It is contended by the respondent that he thereafter suffered various complications and as a consequence whereof, he was admitted to the B.M. Hospital at Mysore. He was accordingly treated and he recovered from the same. His case is that due to the gross medical negligence by the petitioners, he had suffered various complications. It is only at the D.M. Hospital, Mysore, that he was subsequently cured. Under these circumstances a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore claiming compensation. The proceedings are still pending. The 2nd respondent thereafter filed a complaint before the 1st respondent, Karnataka Medical Council alleging professional negligence and accordingly sought action for the same. In pursuance whereof the impugned show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present Petition is filed. 5. Sri. The proceedings are still pending. The 2nd respondent thereafter filed a complaint before the 1st respondent, Karnataka Medical Council alleging professional negligence and accordingly sought action for the same. In pursuance whereof the impugned show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present Petition is filed. 5. Sri. V.Y. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the impugned notice is issued without jurisdiction and hence liable to be set aside. He contends that the said notice would amount to double jeopardy, in as much as proceedings have already been initiated before the Consumer Court. Hence, initiation of these proceedings on the same cause of action would result in double jeopardy and hence the notice requires to be quashed. 6. He further contends that petitioner No.2 has been registered as a Medical Practitioner under the Medical Council of India as per Section 27 of the Central Act and the said certificate is produced as Annexure-C. Similarly the 3rd petitioner has produced the Registration Certificate dated 25-2-1994 issued by the Registrar, Maharashtra Medical Council. The certificate for additional medical qualification letter dated 18-6-2004 has been produced before the Court today, written by the Secretary, Medical Council of India to state that the 3rd petition has been registered under Section 27 of the Central Act. he therefore contends that there is no jurisdiction for the respondent Medical Council to initiate these proceedings. By referring to Section 15 of the State Act, he contends that it is only a Medical Practitioner’s name that could be removed for professional misconduct, only after holding an enquiry. He contends, that in terms of Section 2(c) of the State Act, a registered practitioner has been defined to mean any person registered under the provisions of this Act. Since the petitioners 2 & 3 are not registered under the provisions of the Act, no notice could be issued by the Karnataka Medical Council. He further contends that a punishment can be imposed only after due enquiry and in the instant case, no enquiry having taken place, the impugned notice is bad in law. 7. On the other hand, Sri D.S. Hosmath, the learned counsel appearing for the Karnataka Medical Council defends the impugned notice. He further contends that a punishment can be imposed only after due enquiry and in the instant case, no enquiry having taken place, the impugned notice is bad in law. 7. On the other hand, Sri D.S. Hosmath, the learned counsel appearing for the Karnataka Medical Council defends the impugned notice. He contends that in terms of Section 13 of the State Act, persons who intended to practice medicine in the State should get themselves registered by applying to the Registrar giving the description of the qualifications, the dates on which they were granted the Degree etc. Failure to do so therefore, disentitles them to practice in the State in terms of Section 15(2) of the Central Act. He therefore contends that firstly, petitioners 2 and 3 are not authorised to practice medicine in the State of Karnataka, since admittedly they are not registered in the State. Secondly a notice has been issued to them, calling for an explanation. It is only after an explanation has been received, that the same would be considered and thereafter the proceedings would be either continued or dropped. Hence any interference at this state is premature and wholly uncalled for. 8. Sri Manohar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 defends the impugned notice. He submits that as a result of the gross negligence by the petitioners, he is put to undue loss and hardship. That the proceedings before the Consumer Forum are to seek compensation and the proceedings before the Medical Council are to take punitive action against the petitioners. Hence the principles of double jeopardy are not attracted. 9. Heard counsels. 10. The contention of the petitioners is that in terms of Section 27 of the Central Act, they have a right to practice anywhere in the country. They therefore contend that having been registered with the Indian Medical Council, no registration anywhere in the country is required, to practice anywhere in the country. Therefore the registration with the Indian medical Council under Section 27 licences him to practice anywhere in the country without neither a registration nor an enrollment to the State Medical Council. 11. In the order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to refer to the attendant law on the issue. Section 2(c) of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961 defines a registered practitioner as follows:- 2. 11. In the order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to refer to the attendant law on the issue. Section 2(c) of the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961 defines a registered practitioner as follows:- 2. (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx “(c) “Registered Practitioner” means any person registered under the provisions of this Act.” Section 13, is with reference to the Registration of Medical Practitioners which reads as follows: “13. Registration of Medical Practitioners.- (1) Every person who hold any of the medical qualifications included in the schedules to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Central Act 102 of 1956), may apply to the Registrar giving a correct description of his qualifications, with the dates on which they were granted, and present his degree, diploma or licence long with (prescribed fee) for being registered under this Act. the Registrar shall if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered, enter his name in the register: Provided that the Registrar shall on application and on payment of (prescribed fee) enter the names of medical practitioners registered under any of the enactments repealed by section 34 and included in the registers maintained in accordance with the provisions of the said repealed enactments as adapted by the Karnataka Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956. (2) The Medical Council may refuse to permit the registration of any person who has been convicted of a cognizable offence as defined in the [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974]), or any other law for the time being in force, or who after due inquiry has been held guilty by the Karnataka Medical Council or by the Medical Council of any other State in India of infamous conduct in any professional respect. Section 13 of the Act mandates that whoever holds a medical qualification, as stated in the schedule to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 may apply to the Registrar giving a description of the qualification etc., and if the Registrar is so satisfied shall enter his name in the Register. 12. Section 15 is the power exercisable by the 1st respondent in removing a Medical Practitioner’s name from the register which reads as follows:- “15. 12. Section 15 is the power exercisable by the 1st respondent in removing a Medical Practitioner’s name from the register which reads as follows:- “15. Removal of Medical Practitioner’s name from register (for misconduct, etc.)- (1) If a medical practitioner has been, after due inquiry by the Medical Council, found guilty of any misconduct, negligence, incompetence or violation of code of medical ethics, the Medical Council may- (a) issue a letter of warning addressed to such medical practitioner; or (b) direct the name of such medical practitioner- (i) to be removed from the register for such period as may be specified in the direction, or (ii) to be removed from the register without specifying the period of such removal. Explanation: For the purposes of this section “misconduct” shall mean- (a) the conviction of the medical practitioner by a Criminal Court for an offence which involves oral turpitude and which is cognizable as defined in [the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974)], or any other law for the time being in force; (b) any conduct which, in the opinion of the Medical Council is infamous in relation to the medical profession. (2) The Medical Council may, at any subsequent date if it thinks fir and shall on a decision to that effect of the Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, direct that any name so removed shall be re-entered. 13. On the other hand the attendant provision of Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as follows:- “15. Right of persons possessing qualifications in the Schedules to be enrolled.- [(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State Medical Register. On the other hand the attendant provision of Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as follows:- “15. Right of persons possessing qualifications in the Schedules to be enrolled.- [(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State Medical Register. (2) save as provided in section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register.- (a) shall hold office as physician or surgeon or any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority’ (b) shall practice medicine in any State; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; (d) Shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of laws an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) on any matter relating to medicine. (3) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both]” Section 13 of the State Act provides for registration to be made with the Registrar by giving a correct description, qualifications etc. On satisfaction, the Registrar on payment of a fee shall enter the name of the Medical practitioner in the Register. The Medical Council may refuse to permit the registration of any person who has been convicted of any offence etc. Sub-clause(b) of sub-section (2) to Section 15 of the Central Act, provides that no person other than the Medical Practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register shall practice medicine in any State. 14. The Medical Council may refuse to permit the registration of any person who has been convicted of any offence etc. Sub-clause(b) of sub-section (2) to Section 15 of the Central Act, provides that no person other than the Medical Practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register shall practice medicine in any State. 14. The State Medical Council has been defined in sub-section (j) of Section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act which reads as follows:- “(j) “State Medical Council” means a medical council constituted under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of medicine;” Sub-section (k) defines the State Medical Register as follows:- “(k) “State Medical Register” means a register maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of medicine;” 15. Section 15(1) of the Central Act provides that subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the schedules shall be sufficient qualifications for enrolment on any State Medical Register. Therefore, the medical qualifications as included in the schedule to the Act are the qualifications for enrolment on any State Medical Register. Therefore, until and unless the person possesses the medical qualification as per the schedule, he cannot be enrolled on a State Medical Register. Sub-Section (2), which was inserted by Act 24 of 1964 with effect from 16.06.1964, provides that no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register shall practice medicine in any State. Therefore, it is mandatory for a medical practitioner to enroll himself on a State Medical Register. If he does not enroll himself on a State Medical Register, he cannot practice medicine in the State. 16. The petitioner’s contend, that having been enrolled in the Indian Medical Register, they are entitled to practice in any part of India in terms of Section 27 of the Central Act and therefore an enrollment on a State Medical Register is not required. Section 27 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as follows:- “27. 16. The petitioner’s contend, that having been enrolled in the Indian Medical Register, they are entitled to practice in any part of India in terms of Section 27 of the Central Act and therefore an enrollment on a State Medical Register is not required. Section 27 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as follows:- “27. Privileges of persons who are enrolled on the Indian Medical Register.-Subject to the conditions and restriction laid down in this Act regarding medical practice by persons possessing certain recognised medical qualifications, every person whose name is for the time being borne on the Indian Medical Register shall be entitled according to his qualifications to practice as a medical practitioner in any part of India and to recover in due course of law in respect of such practice any expenses, charges in respect of medicaments or other appliances, or any fees to which he may be entitled.” 17. Hence, it is apparent that the privileges of being enrolled on the Indian Medical Register is subject to the conditions and restrictions laid down in the Act regarding medical practice by persons possessing certain recognised medical qualifications, etc of every person whose name is borne on the Indian Medical Register. The conditions and restrictions laid down in the Act are in terms of Section 15(2) of the Act, which clearly states that no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register shall practice in any State. Therefore, the privilege granted under Section 27 are subject to the conditions and restrictions as laid down under Section 15 (2). Secondly, the privileges are to be granted only to persons whose name is for the time being borne on the Indian Medical Register. As held earlier, a name to be entered on the Indian Medical Register can take place only after the person is enrolled on the State Medical Register. Therefore, a mere registration in the Indian Medical Register alone, cannot grant any privilege in terms of Section 27 of the Act. Hence, the contention that the petitioners are entitled to practice throughout the country in view of the Section 27 of the Indian Medical Council Act is ill-founded and is rejected. 18. Section 21(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as follows:- “21. Hence, the contention that the petitioners are entitled to practice throughout the country in view of the Section 27 of the Indian Medical Council Act is ill-founded and is rejected. 18. Section 21(1) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as follows:- “21. The Indian Medical Register.- (1) The Council shall cause to be maintained in the prescribed manner a register of medical practitioners to be known as the Indian Medical Register, which shall contain the names of all persons who are for the time being enrolled on any State Medical Register and who possess any of the recognised medical qualifications.” (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx It is therefore evident that the Indian Medical Register shall contain the names of all persons who have been enrolled on any State Medical Register. Therefore, the source of the material with regard to the enrolment surfaces from the State Medical Register. Firstly, the medical practitioner should enroll himself on the State Medical Register and it is only thereafter, that the Indian Medical Council shall enter in its register, the names, particulars of such persons who have been enrolled in the State Medical Register. Therefore, the registration with Indian Medical Council without a registration with the State Medical Register is opposed to law. 19. Section 22 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as follows: “22. Supply of copies of the State Medical Registers.-Each State Medical Council shall supply to the Council (six) printed copies of the State Medical Register as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act and subsequently after the first day of April of each year, and each Register of a State Medical Council shall inform the Council without delay of all additions to and other amendments in the State Medical Register made from time to time.” Every such amendment, additions etc that has been made to the State Medical Register from time to time shall be make known to the Indian Medical Council after the first day of April of each year. Therefore it implies that it is the State Medical Council alone that has to carry out any additions, alternations, etc and thereafter, intimate the same to the Indian Medical Council. 20. Section 23 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as follows:- “23. Therefore it implies that it is the State Medical Council alone that has to carry out any additions, alternations, etc and thereafter, intimate the same to the Indian Medical Council. 20. Section 23 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as follows:- “23. Registration in the Indian Medical Register.-The Registrar of the Council may, on receipt of the report of registration of a person in a State Medical Register or on application made in the prescribed manner by any such person, enter his name in the Indian Medical Register: Provided that the Registrar is satisfied that the person concerned possesses a recognised medical qualification.” The report of the registration of a person in a State Medical Register on being received by the Registrar of the Indian Medical Council or on an application made in the prescribed manner by such person to enter his name in the Indian Medical Register, may enter his name. Therefore, the registration with the Indian Medical Register is only after the receipt of the report of registration of a person in a State Medical Register. The second part of the Section refers to an application to be made in the prescribed manner by any such person to enter his name in the Indian Medical Register. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government made the Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000 which was published in the Gazette of India on 15-11-2000. Part-XI of the Regulations deal with the Indian Medical Register which are as follows:- “PART XI INDIAN MEDICAL REGISTER 61. Indian Medical Register xxxxx 62. Intimation of Registration by State Medical Councils.- 63. Publication of supplements to Indian Medical Register.- xxxxx xxxxx 64. Direct Registration.- (1) Application for direct registration with the Council, as envisaged under section 23, may be received in Form A, in duplicate, annexed to these regulations. (2) A fee as fixed from time to time with the approval of the Central Government shall be chargeable as Registration fee. (3) The following documents shall be sent alongwith the application:- (a) Copy of Degree or Diploma or Certificate from the Head of the Institution (Provisional Certificate). (b) Certificate of Post-examination practical training. (2) A fee as fixed from time to time with the approval of the Central Government shall be chargeable as Registration fee. (3) The following documents shall be sent alongwith the application:- (a) Copy of Degree or Diploma or Certificate from the Head of the Institution (Provisional Certificate). (b) Certificate of Post-examination practical training. (4) A certificate in Form B annexed to these regulations shall be issued by the Registrar under his seal, to all persons who are directly registered with the Council and a copy of the said certificate shall be forwarded to the State Medical Council concerned for inclusion of the name in the State Medical Register. 65. Provisional Registration. xxxxx 66. Registration of Additional Qualifications.- Xxxxx 67. Residuary Provision.-“ Xxxxx Rule 64(4) therefore is in terms of a registration as envisaged under the second Part of Section 23 with referent to an application for direct registration. It states that on such registration being made, a copy of the said Certificate shall be forwarded to the State Medical Council concerned for inclusion of the name in the State Medical Register under Rule 64(4). The manner in which an application under Section 23 is to be made has been specified and it is mandatory that the copy of the said Certificate shall be forwarded to the State Medical Council for inclusion of the name in the State Medical Register. Therefore even if the registration takes place on an application made directly to the Indian Medical Council, on such registration the name of the said person shall be entered in the State Medical Register. Therefore it is imminent that the inclusion of the name in the Sate Medical Register has to be made. Even though the medical practitioner has a right to enter his name directly in the Indian Medical Register, however in terms of Section 15(2)(b) he cannot practice medicine in any State in which he has not been enrolled. Therefore even on a direct registration with the Medical Council of India, until and unless his name has been included in the State Medical Register in terms of Rule 64(4) he cannot practice in the State. 21. A reading of Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Central Act exemplifies the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. Therefore even on a direct registration with the Medical Council of India, until and unless his name has been included in the State Medical Register in terms of Rule 64(4) he cannot practice in the State. 21. A reading of Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Central Act exemplifies the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. When Section 15 provides for enrollment on a State Medical Register, without such an enrollment, no person can practice medicine in the State. Sections 21, 22 and 23 provides the manner and procedure under which the registration, alterations, etc has to first take place before the State Medical Council and thereafter, with the Indian Medical Council. Therefore, until and unless all the stages are crossed at the State Medical Council, no registration whatsoever can take place by the Indian Medical Council. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. A.K. SABHAPATHY vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 147, have elaborately considered the various provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act. While so considering the provisions they held at para-12 of their Judgment as follows:- “12. xxxx xxx Section 15 enables a person possessing the medical qualifications included in the Schedule to be enrolled on any State Medical Register and it prohibits a person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register to practice medicine in any State”. (underlining is herein added) Therefore in view of the aforesaid pronouncement, Section 15 prohibits a person who is not enrolled on a State Medical Council to practice medicine in any State. 23. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. MUKHTIAR CHAND AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 7 SCC 579 while considering the scope and ambit of the Indian Medical Council Act, held at para-47 as follows:- “47. 23. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. MUKHTIAR CHAND AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in (1998) 7 SCC 579 while considering the scope and ambit of the Indian Medical Council Act, held at para-47 as follows:- “47. A harmonious reading of Section 15 of the 1956 Act and Section 17 of the 1970 Act leads to the conclusion that there is no scope for a person enrolled on the State Register of Indian Medicine or the Central Register of Indian Medicine to practice modern scientific medicine in any of its branches unless that person is also enrolled on a State medical Register within the meaning of the 1956 Act.” (underlining is herein added) Hence the Supreme Court while enunciating the provision of Section 15 of the Central Act, has held that unless enrolled on a State Medical Register, no person can practice medicine in the country. Until and unless the medical practitioner enrolls himself on a State Medical Register in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 15, it would amount to contravention of the provisions of law. 24. Sub-Section (3) of Section 15 also mandates that any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-Section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for one year or fine of Rs.1,000/- or with both. In the present case, admittedly petitioners 2 & 3 are not registered in terms of Section 13 of the State Act and have contravened the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of the Central Act. Under these circumstances therefore, the respondents are required to take appropriate action in terms of sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the Central Act. In view of the finding recorded, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that petitioners 2 & 3 having contravened the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of the Central Act, are liable for punishment in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act. 25. It is further contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the provisions of Section 15 of the State Act mandates that it is only after a due enquiry that the name of the Medical Practitioner can be removed from the register. 26. On a reply being received to the notice and on holding an enquiry, the power under Section 15 of the State Act could be invoked. 26. On a reply being received to the notice and on holding an enquiry, the power under Section 15 of the State Act could be invoked. The Medical Council after due enquiry and having found the person of any misconduct, may issue a warning, direct the name of such medical practitioner to be removed from the register for such period as may be specified or to remove from the register without specifying the period of such removal. Annexure-A is the notice issued by respondent No.1 calling upon the petitioners to furnish their reply with regard to the complaint. No punishment is imposed vide Annexure-A. The same can be done only after an enquiry and after hearing the concerned persons. 27. In respect whereof he relies on the Judgment in the case of MARTIN F.D’SOUZA v. MOHD. ISHFAQ reported in AIR 2009 SC 2049 in particular reference to para-117. The Hon’ble Supreme Court therein issued a direction that whenever a complaint is received against a Doctor or a Hospital by the Consumer Fora (whether District, State or National) or by the Criminal Court then the Consumer Court or the Criminal court should first refer the matter to a Doctor or a Committee of Doctors and only when a prima facie case is made out, then a notice should be issued. 28. Firstly the direction issued is restricted to a Consumer Court and the Criminal Court. Deliberately No directions have been issued either, to the Indian Medical Council or the Karnataka State Medical Council. Hence, the directions would not be applicable to respondent No.1 herein. The direction issued was in order to protect the bonafide Doctors from being harassed. In the instant case, the grievance being made out by the petitioners is not on the question whether bonafide they have performed their duties as Doctors or not, but the question is whether the notice issued by the respondents lacks jurisdiction or not. The Medical Council is a professional body. A notice issued by the Medical Council calling for an explanation cannot be read lightly. The Medical Council can therefore consider the case of the petitioners only after a reply is furnished to them. Consideration of the reply would be part of the enquiry. Until and unless a reply is furnished, it cannot be held that the issuance of a notice itself is bad in law. The Medical Council can therefore consider the case of the petitioners only after a reply is furnished to them. Consideration of the reply would be part of the enquiry. Until and unless a reply is furnished, it cannot be held that the issuance of a notice itself is bad in law. On this ground also the said Judgment would have no application to the facts of this case. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that there is no power conferred on the first respondent to issue a notice under Section 15 of the State Act is ill founded and liable to be rejected. 29. Petitioner No.1 is a Doctor registered in terms of the Karnataka Registration Act, 1961 and hence only a part of the contentions of the petitioners’ counsel would be applicable to him. It is only on the issue of merit alone that the petitioners have addressed their arguments with reference to the first petitioner. 30. To accept the petitioner’s contention would mean that a Doctor not registered in the State of Karnataka, firstly, can practice medicine herein with the local authorities not knowing his qualifications etc and consequently as a result of his negligence, no proceedings can be initiated by the Karnataka Medical Council against him. That would neither be the aim or the object of either the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or the Karnataka Medical Council Registration Act, 1961. The Central Act has been enacted to provide for reconstitution of the Medical Council and the maintenance of a Medical Register for India and for matters connected therewith. The State Act has been enacted to consolidate the law for the registration of Medical Practitioners of modern scientific system of medicine in the State of Karnataka and to have one Medical Register for the entire State etc. The objects of both the Acts are to ensure that the qualified persons are registered under the State Act. The same would enable the State Council to keep a track of all the medical practitioners practicing medicine in the State. The Registration with the State Medical Council is as mandated by the Central Act. This would also enable action to be taken by the State Medical Council for misconduct, negligence, incompetence or violation of the code of medical ethics by a medical practitioner. The Registration with the State Medical Council is as mandated by the Central Act. This would also enable action to be taken by the State Medical Council for misconduct, negligence, incompetence or violation of the code of medical ethics by a medical practitioner. These being the objects of both the enactments, the contention of the petitioners that even though they are not enrolled under the State Act and having been enrolled under the Central Act, they are entitled to practice medicine in the State is wholly without merit and liable to be rejected. Therefore the contention of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the respondents is wholly ill-founded and is therefore rejected. 31. Annexure-A is a mere notice seeking the petitioners to furnish their reply. They have also been asked to furnish a copy of the Registration Certificate. At this stage, it would be highly improper to interfere in the matter. It is necessary in the interest of the petitioners that they reply to the same. Thereafter the respondent may proceed further in the matter. Hence, on this ground also I do not find any error that calls for any interference. 32. For the aforesaid reasons, Petitions being devoid of merits, are dismissed.