JUDGMENT 1. The arguments advanced by Mr. S. Mahaveer Shivaji, who appears as a party-in-person, by Mr. V.P. Raman, learned counsel for the first respondent, by Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel for the second respondent, by Mr. M.S. Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the third respondent and by Mr. Ravi Anantha Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent are heard. Writ petition, counter and the materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. 2. Mr. S. Mahaveer Shivaji, the petitioner, who appears in person, contends that when he submitted a complaint to the second respondent, namely the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, alleging professional misconduct on the part of the fourth respondent, the same was not considered on its merit and on the other hand, the second respondent issued a reply informing him that Tamil Nadu Medical Council was not empowered to take disciplinary proceedings against the misdeeds allegedly done by Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre and its staff; that in view of the said reply, he had to approach the Medical Council of India with a complaint against the fourth respondent and also the above said hospital for necessary disciplinary action; that the Medical Council of India also sent a reply dated 10.06.2008 stating that the complaint of the petitioner could not be taken up for consideration assuming that it was an appeal preferred against the order of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and that such an appeal was time barred under clause 8.7 and 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 and that the same would show that the petitioner, who preferred a complaint to the regulating bodies against the fourth respondent and the above said hospital for necessary action for professional misconduct, was tossed from pillar to post without any ray of hope of getting the desired remedy. 3. 3. It is the further submission of the petitioner that the complaint filed before the Medical Council of India was an independent complaint based on the communication made by the second respondent that the Tamil Nadu Medical Council did not have the power to take disciplinary proceedings against the misdeeds of the hospital and its staff; that such an order passed by the second respondent, had misdirected the petitioner to approach the first respondent by way of a complaint and the first respondent mistook the said complaint to be an appeal against the order of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council which led to the rejection of the complaint as time barred and that hence the order of the first respondent dated 10.06.2008 is liable to be set aside. 4. The copy of the complaint sent to the Medical Council of India is found at page 1 to 5 of the typed set of papers filed along with the petition. It is obvious from the same, a replica of a complaint lodged with the police, was signed on 28.12.2007 and sent to the Secretary, Medical Council of India. Copies of the postal receipt showing despatch of the same to the Medical Council of India and the postal acknowledgment card are also available in the typed set of papers at pages 6 and 27 respectively. The order of the first respondent dated 10.06.2008 also refers to the said complaint regarding which the said order came to be passed. The same was referred to in the order of the first respondent in the following lines: "... your appeal vide letter dated 28/12/2007 against the order dated 21.08.2006 of Tamil Nadu Medical Council..." 5. Mr. Mahaveer Shivaji, the petitioner, would contend that only a complaint was made to the first respondent enclosing a copy of the order of the second respondent dated 21.08.2006 to show that his attempt to seek a remedy before the State medical council was turned down on the premise that the State medical council was not empowered to take action, but such a letter annexed with the copy of the said order of the State Medical Council was misconstrued by the Medical Council of India to be an appeal preferred against the order of the second respondent dated 21.08.2006. Upon perusing the copies of the above said complaint and the orders, this court is satisfied with the contention of the petitioner that what the petitioner intended was to prefer a complaint to the Medical Council of India for taking action against the hospital and the medical practitioner, may be consequent to the order passed by the State Medical Council to the effect that it was not empowered to take disciplinary action against the hospital and its staff and that the same was misconstrued to be an appeal, which resulted in the rejection of the complaint, as it was preferred beyond the time prescribed for preferring an appeal against the order of the State medical council. 6. Though the said order rejecting the complaint of the petitioner construing the same to be an appeal against the order of the second respondent may not be correct, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the present writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to conduct enquiry and take suitable disciplinary action under section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956; that such a prayer in the absence of an order for the removal of the name of the Medical Practitioner from the Register of State medical council under section 24 shall not be maintainable and that on the sole ground the writ petition is bound to be dismissed. 7. Mr. V.P. Raman, learned counsel for the first respondent would further submit that though the Medical Council of India as well as the State medical council did have concurrent original powers to entertain complaint against the medical practitioners, the petitioner having chosen to prefer a complaint to the State council, shall not have the right to prefer a similar complaint to the Medical Council of India. It is his further submission that though the complaint preferred by the petitioner to the State medical council would have been rejected holding that the State council was not empowered to take action on the complaint, the same was, no doubt, a decision made by the State council, against which, only an appeal will lie to the Medical Council of India and not a fresh complaint to the Medical Council of India. This court is not in a position to accept the above said contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent. This court is not in a position to accept the above said contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent. When concurrent powers are conferred on two different authorities to entertain complaints and the complaint preferred to one of such authorities is not considered and is rejected stating that it does not have the jurisdiction, it cannot be construed as a decision barring the right of the complainant to approach the other concurrent Authority by an original complaint. In this case, the petitioner having been shown the door by the second respondent stating that the second respondent was not empowered to take disciplinary action based on his complaint, he was very much justified in preferring the original complaint to the other authority holding concurrent power, namely the Medical Council of India. Such a complaint was misconstrued to be an appeal and was rejected as time barred. 8. Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that since the petitioner in his complaint had requested the second respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the hospital as well as the Medical Practitioner, the second respondent chose to issue the order dated 21.08.2006 to the effect that the State Medical council was not empowered to take disciplinary proceedings against the misdeeds done by the hospital. When it was brought to the notice of the learned counsel that the order does not refer to the alleged misdeeds of the hospital alone, but it also refers to the alleged misdeeds of its staff, which shall include the Medical Practitioners working there, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that, in case a fresh complaint is made against the medical practitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the rules and regulations. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader, who represents the third respondent submits that the third respondent is not interested in the result of the writ petition and this court may pass any order as it deems appropriate. 10. 9. The learned Additional Government Pleader, who represents the third respondent submits that the third respondent is not interested in the result of the writ petition and this court may pass any order as it deems appropriate. 10. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent, who is alleged to have committed the professional misconduct, would contend that, since criminal proceedings have been initiated against the fourth respondent, before conclusion of the criminal proceedings, initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Regulating Body for professional misconduct will amount to putting him under double jeopardy and hence the present prayer made by the petitioner for initiation of suitable disciplinary action should be rejected. It is his further submission that even if proceedings for taking disciplinary action is directed to be initiated, the second respondent should be directed to take into account the opinion of the expert physicians in the field already obtained and the opinion to be rendered by the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the orders of this court dated 18.03.2013 made in Crl.O.P.Nos.7614/2008 and 18043/2008. 11. This court paid its anxious considerations to the above said submissions made on behalf of the parties. 12. The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 contains provisions, which empowers the Medical Council of India to take up the case of professional misconduct and decide on appropriate measures. It also empowers the Medical Council of India to withdraw to itself any complaint on the file of the State medical council if no order has been passed by the State council within the time stipulated in the regulations and refer the same to the Ethical Committee of the Medical Council of India for its disposal. Upon considering the materials available on record, this court comes to the conclusion that the first respondent passed the order declining consideration of the complaint of the petitioner on an erroneous assumption that it was preferred as an appeal against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, whereas in effect, the said complaint was an independent complaint made to the Medical Council of India, to which a copy of the order of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council dated 21.08.2006 to the effect that Tamil Nadu Medical Council was not empowered to take action was annexed. Of course it is true that the proper course to be adopted by the first respondent shall be to initiate action at their end, which the first respondent has not chosen to do. However, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition not for quashing the order of the first respondent dated 10.06.2008, but for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to take suitable disciplinary action under section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act reads as follows: REMOVAL OF NAMES FROM THE INDIAN MEDICAL REGISTER 24 (1) If the name of any person enrolled on a State Medical Register is removed therefrom in pursuance of any power conferred by or under any law relating to medical practitioners for the time being in force in any State, the Council shall direct the removal of the name of such person from the Indian Medical Register. (2) Where the name of any person has been removed from a State Medical Register on the ground of professional misconduct or any other ground except that he is not possessed of the requisite medical qualifications or where any application made by the said person for restoration of his name to the State Medical Register has been rejected, he may appeal in the prescribed manner and subject to such conditions including conditions as to the payment of a fee as may be laid down in rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, to the Central Government, whose decision, which shall be given after consulting the Council, shall be binding on the State Government and on the authorities concerned with the preparation of the State Medical Register. As per the said section, removal of the name from the Indian Medical Register is made consequential on the removal of a name from the State Medical Register. Section 24 shall not be attracted, if a person's name is not removed from the State Medical Register and hence the prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to take action under Section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is bound to be rejected. 13. Of course the prayer has been couched in such terms that the first respondent should be directed to take suitable disciplinary action under section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 13. Of course the prayer has been couched in such terms that the first respondent should be directed to take suitable disciplinary action under section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. But such a mistaken prayer will not take away the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to mould the relief and issue suitable orders in appropriate cases, in order to render complete justice. It can issue the appropriate order even though the petitioner would have referred to an inappropriate provision for the grant of the relief. This court can also issue appropriate order directing the first respondent to take the petitioner's complaint on file, consider the same on merit and pass orders. But adoption of such a course will cause inconvenience to both the petitioner and the 4th respondent, since they may have to travel all the way to New Delhi for the purpose of such enquiry. Such an inconvenience to the parties can be avoided by issuing a direction to the second respondent to take up the complaint of the petitioner and pass orders on merit. 14. In this regard, the contention of the fourth respondent that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the fourth respondent will amount to double jeopardy in view of the fact that criminal proceedings have been initiated against him on the complaint of the petitioner containing very same allegations has got to be discountenanced, because both the proceedings operate on different spheres. The further contention of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that the second respondent, in case of initiation of proceedings on the complaint of the petitioner, should be directed to take into account the experts' opinion already obtained by the Investigating Officer in the criminal case and also the medical opinion to be tendered by the Special Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order of this court dated 19.03.2013 made in Crl.O.P.Nos.7614/2008 and 18043/2008 also does not impress this court. If this court ventures to give any direction as to how the statutory power of the second respondent is to be exercised, it will amount to crossing the 'Lakshman Rekha' and transgressing the power of this court. The Disciplinary Authority, shall have the power to consider any material, which it deems appropriate, to be considered as having a bearing on the issue before it. The Disciplinary Authority, shall have the power to consider any material, which it deems appropriate, to be considered as having a bearing on the issue before it. Hence, this court rejects the above said contention of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and holds that the second respondent shall have the free hand to deal with the complaint in accordance with the rules. For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the interest of justice can be met by disposing of this writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh complaint to the second respondent. If such a complaint is received by the second respondent, the second respondent shall deal with the same in accordance with the provisions of the statute and regulations governing the Medical Practitioners' profession. This court makes it clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner and also on the question of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In case of initiation of such disciplinary proceedings by the second respondent against the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent shall have the right to raise all the grounds of defence. 15. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh complaint to the second respondent against the fourth respondent, within four weeks from today. On receipt of such a complaint, the second respondent, shall proceed with the same in accordance with the rules. This court makes it clear that no opinion is expressed regarding the merits of the complaint. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.