ORDER : The writ petition is against the order dated 09.10.2018 passed by respondent No.1-Principal Secretary, Health, Medical, Education & Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder in exercise of power conferred under Section 40(1) of The Clinical Establishment Act, 2010 a sum of Rs.50,000/-has been directed to be recovered by way of penalty from one Mr. Dharamdeo Vishwakarma who happens to be a doctor with degree MBBS (Alternative Medicine) with a further direction to take appropriate legal action against the doctors of the aforesaid clinic having false diploma and degree basis upon which they are doing medical practices. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that the same has been passed without providing any opportunity of being heard. 3. He has further submitted that the said clinic has been established by one Dr. R.L. Jaiswal who is having MBBS Degree and got registration to run the aforesaid clinic and therefore it cannot be said that the aforesaid clinic was being run by a doctor having no valid MBBS Degree. 4. Mr. Fahad Allam, learned AC to GA III submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner that the order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing is absolutely incorrect in view of the fact that when on inspection it has been found that although the said clinic has been registered in the name of one Dr. RL Jaiswal but on inquiry it was found that the aforesaid doctor was not present and further on inquiry it has been stated by the inspection team that he is the resident of State of Bihar. It has further been came to the notice of the said team that the said clinic is having a board is front thereto of one Dr. D.D. Vishwakarma in which it has been printed MBBS (Alternative Medicine) with General Physician and accordingly the said team came to the conclusion that the aforesaid degree is not valid one either by the Central Government or by the State Government, it has further been pointed out that Dr. D.D. Vishwakarma in which it has been printed MBBS (Alternative Medicine) with General Physician and accordingly the said team came to the conclusion that the aforesaid degree is not valid one either by the Central Government or by the State Government, it has further been pointed out that Dr. D.D. Vishwakarma who is found practicing at the time of inspection has shown degree obtained by him from Central Kolkata Medical and Technological Research Institute a diploma in Medical Laboratory which is a forged one since the said institute has not been recognized by West Bengal Government and therefore the said clinic has been found to be run contrary to the statutory provision. He submits that against the said order the petitioner has preferred an appeal in view of the provision of Section 8 of The Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 and after hearing the parties the decision was taken for recovery of penalty of a sum of Rs.50,000/-in terms of the provision as contained in Section 40(1) of The Clinical Establishment Act, 2010 with a direction to take appropriate legal action against the doctors attached to the aforesaid clinic who are doing the medical practice on the basis of forged diploma and degree certificate. Therefore he submits that the petitioner has been provided with an opportunity of hearing and hence the order has been passed in terms of the provision as such, may not be interfered with. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submission it is evident from the material available on record more particularly the impugned order dated 09.10.2018 which has been passed in terms of the provision of Section 8 of The Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 that the inspection team constituted to inspect the clinic run and registered in the name of Rani Seva Sadan by one Dr. RL Jaiswal who is living in the State of Bihar. 6. It is further found in course of inspection that one Dr. D.D. Vishwakarma has been found to be practicing in the aforesaid clinic with the Board in the aforesaid clinic of Dr. D.D. Vishwakarma as MBBS (A.M.) General Physician, A.M. stands for Alternative Medicine. 7. There is no dispute that an alternative medicine is not a degree either authorized by the Central Government or State Government or even by the Medical Council of India. D.D. Vishwakarma as MBBS (A.M.) General Physician, A.M. stands for Alternative Medicine. 7. There is no dispute that an alternative medicine is not a degree either authorized by the Central Government or State Government or even by the Medical Council of India. Therefore, an MBBS having alternative medicine cannot be said to be a valid degree to practice. 8. It is further given that the aforesaid MBBS degree said to have been obtained by Dr. D.D. Vishwakarma from one Central Kolkata Medical and Technological Research Institute from where diploma in medical laboratory has been obtained which is a forged degree for the reason that the aforesaid institute is not recognized by the West Bengal Government and therefore the inspection team has come to the finding that Dr. D.D. Vishwakarma was doing private practice on the basis of a forged degree and diploma. Therefore, in exercise of power conferred under Section 40(1) The Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 a sum of Rs.50,000/-has been directed to be recovered by way of penalty along with a direction to take legal proper action for doing practice on the basis of forged degree or diploma. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that he has not been provided with an opportunity of hearing. 10. There is no dispute about the position of law that an order cannot be passed without providing opportunity of being heard if the same relates to civil consequence but simultaneously it is also settled position of law that the principle of natural justice is having no strait jacket formula. The principle of natural justice is to be followed only in case where factual aspect is in dispute and if there is no chance of change in the factual aspect the matter is not to be remitted before the authority for taking appropriate decision otherwise it will lead to empty formality and futile exercise. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital,U.P.& others, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held at paragraph-64 which is being quoted herein below: “64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right. Denial of such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of government grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before the High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” 11. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519 wherein their Lordships have held at paragraph-39 which is being quoted herein below : “39.We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in straitjacket formula, the aforesaid instances are given. We have highlighted the jurisprudential basis of adhering to the principles of natural justice which are grounded on the doctrine of procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason-perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker” 12. Nevertheless, there may be situations wherein for some reason-perhaps because the evidence against the individual is thought to be utterly compelling-it is felt that a fair hearing “would make no difference”-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker” 12. Here in the instant case the petitioner since has taken the ground of principle of natural justice but the Court has put a query upon him that as to whether he is disputing the MBBS (Alternative Medicine) degree which has been obtained from one Central Kolkata Medical and Technological Research Institute which has not been recognized by the West Bengal Government, the petitioner has submitted that he cannot substantiate the aforesaid fact and also stated fairly that Dr. D.D. Vishwakarma is having MBBS with Alternative Medicine but alternative medicine is not a subject in the MBBS and therefore when the fact is not in dispute, then remitting the matter before the authority for following the principle of natural justice so far as the instant case is concerned, would lead to futile exercise and empty formality and therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that there is violation of principle of natural justice so the matter remitting before the concerned authority is having no force, accordingly the same is rejected in view of the said factual aspect having not in dispute since the doctors are there to save life of the people and as such a valid degree is supposed to be possessed by one or the other doctor for treating the human being for saving their live and if such type of doctors would be allowed to continue with practice, the same would amount to giving premium to the doctor and hence in my considered view, the authority who has taken the decision cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity. 13. But before parting with the order, this writ petition since has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 09.10.2018 and it is settled position of law that the writ of certiorari can only be issued in case the order passed by any authority is having no jurisdiction or it is contrary to statutory provision or the contains miscarriage of justice but none of these points is involved in this case and hence on this point also, writ petitioner lacks merits. 14. 14. Accordingly, in entirely of the facts and circumstances and for the reason stated above, I find no infirmity in the order impugned. 15. Hence, the writ petition fails, and is hereby, dismissed. Petition dismissed.