ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the Press release dated 29.12.2019 passed by the respondent No. 1. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the respondent No. 1 alleging therein that his wife was pregnant as such she was admitted to Pushpa Mission Hospital-respondent No. 4 and on 13.8.2012 she delivered twins and was discharged on 22.9.2012. Thereafter it was found that eyes of the kids have been lost. On the basis of the said complaint, a notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice and denied all the allegations. In the reply the petitioner stated that the twins were prematurely born and were having various problems and entire information was provided to the parents, but they were not agreeable to take the kids for higher center for further treatment and even the discharge was sought by them on 22.9.2012 against the advice of the doctors. Thereafter a notice was issued to the petitioner on 13.12.2019 to appear before the Etiquette cum Disciplinary Committee on 28.12.2019. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 3/Committee, but first complainant /respondent No. 2 was called behind the back of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was called behind the back of the complainant and was given two minutes chance to explain his stand and thereafter without passing any order on 29.12.2019 respondent No. 1 issued a public notice in daily Hindi newspaper Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Nai Duniya intimating the public at large that certificate of practice of the petitioner has been suspended for one year on the ground of negligence in treating the patient. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no impugned order was served on the petitioner even though he visited the office of the respondent No. 1. He argues that the respondent No. 1 does not have any jurisdiction, competence and authority of law to decide the case of professional misconduct against the doctors since MPMCI is not constituted and it is only the Commissioner, Medical Services who is competent as has been held by this Court in the case of Dr. Manoj Bansal v. M.P. Medical Council and others and Dr. Devendas Gupta alias Dr. Manoj Bansal v. M.P. Medical Council and others and Dr. Devendas Gupta alias Dr. D.K. Gupta v. M.P. State Medical Council and others, passed in W.P. No. 28100/2019 and another connected Writ Petition, which has been decided by the Gwalior Bench. The alleged complaint does not fall within purview of the either M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 or the Regulation 2002 and the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order be set aside. He relied on the judgment passed by Kolkata High Court in the case of Tapan Mukherjee and others v. Medical Council of India decided on 30.11.2018 in W.P. No. 4202/2015. 4. The respondents have filed their reply and in the reply they have stated that the said Press release was published on the basis of the decision taken by the Ethics Cum Disciplinary Committee and approved by the Commissioner Medical Education being the Council under section 29 of the M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 and, therefore, the order was passed by the Council under the Indian Medical Council ( Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 and the same is appealable under Regulation No. 8.8.of Regulations, 2002 before the Medical Council of India, New Delhi and thus, the petitioner does have an alternative remedy and on this ground alone, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The respondents further stated that the petitioner has rightly been held guilty of medical negligence by the Ethics cum Disciplinary Committee and the decision of the Committee has been approved by the Commissioner of Medical Education, who is deemed to be a Council under section 29 of the Adhiniyam, 1987 and the decision making process does not suffer from any irregularity and, therefore, no interference is required in the present matter. So far as the jurisdiction, competence and authority of law to decide the case of professional misconduct against the doctors is concerned; since Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad is not constituted and it is only the Commissioner, Medical Education who is competent as has been held by this Court in the case of Manoj Bansal (supra). Thus, the impugned order is passed by the competent authority and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6. Thus, the impugned order is passed by the competent authority and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner is a Pediatrician and his licence has been suspended vide order dated 29.12.2019. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground of incompetency. Since the M.P. Medical Council is not constituted to decide the case of professional misconduct against the doctors, therefore, the Commissioner, Medical Services is competent to decide the case of professional misconduct against the doctors, as is held in the case of Manoj Bansal (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that, in the present case, the order impugned has been passed by the Registrar, M.P. Medical Council, Bhopal, who has no authority to pass the said order. He relied on the judgment passed in the case of Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandasa Bhanji : reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Registrar is having no authority to pass the impugned order even with the approval of the Commissioner. It was further observed that such an act of the Commissioner, Medical Education, Madhya Pradesh cannot be approved, being illegal, and the same was quashed. At the relevant time the Director was the Special Officer or the Council as the case may be but after the amendment, now the Commissioner has become the Special Officer or the Council in the amendment under section 29 of Adhiniyam, 1987. Thus, the Registrar is not having any authority to pass the impugned order even with the approval of the Commissioner. It is the Commissioner who has to pass an order under his signature. Thus, when the order impugned is without jurisdiction, the same can be challenged before this Court. The same can be put to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, as per this judgment, only the Commissioner, who is empowered to pass the impugned order. 7. In the year 2019 the Act of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad was amended by issuing an Ordinance in the Gazette Notification dated 11.7.2019. The same can be put to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, as per this judgment, only the Commissioner, who is empowered to pass the impugned order. 7. In the year 2019 the Act of M.P. Ayurvigyan Parishad was amended by issuing an Ordinance in the Gazette Notification dated 11.7.2019. As per this Gazette Notification, Clause 4 of the said Notification has been substituted the word 'Commissioner Medical Education, Madhya Pradesh' in place of 'Director Medical Services Madhya Pradesh' in compliance of the order passed by this Court. Thus, as per the said amendment the Commissioner is only the authority to pass the impugned order. Since the Medical Council is not constituted it is the Commissioner of the Medical Services who is designated as a Special Officer to be Council under section 29 of Adhiniyam, 1987. 8. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances and relying on the judgment passed in the case of Manoj Bansal (supra), this Court is of the view that the order impugned passed under the signature of the Registrar with the approval of the Commissioner is unsustainable, as the same has been passed by the incompetent Authority. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned Press release dated 29.12.2019 is hereby set aside. ..................