ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Notice No. TSMC/L&DAQ/Ethics/42/A/2025 dated 29-01-2025 whereby petitioner was directed to appear before the Ethics Panel of the Telangana State Medical Council. 2. Petitioner’s case is that he had been serving as the Medical Director of Respondent No.3, i.e. Wellness NXP Private Limited, which is a duly registered clinical establishment forming part of a chain of six Wellness Hospitals which are operating in the State of Telangana. According to petitioner, he was responsible for overseeing the clinical functions of the institution, however, he tendered resignation from the said post on 1 st July, 2024. While so, the 2 nd respondent issued notice on 21.03.2024 addressing the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital in which allegations were levelled that hospital had sponsored and participated in felicitation programmes involving unqualified individuals, including registered medical practitioners and private medical practitioners and insinuating that the Hospital is encouraging quackery. The hospital submitted a detailed explanation clarifying that felicitation programme was conducted merely as a gesture of goodwill towards members of the para-medical, auxiliary, healthcare community which cannot be described as programme for unqualified medical practitioners. 2.1. Petitioner states that respondents, after realizing that they do not have the authority to issue such notices, issued notices directly to him on several dates to corner him. He further stated that after inspection, the authorities issued notices to the Hospital stating that they noticed certain irregularities and the same have been replied by the Hospital. Petitioner in his response to the authorities also clarified that he resigned from the post of the Medical Director and is not, therefore, connected with the responsibilities of the Hospital. However, he was served the third notice on 15-05-2024 followed by the another notice dated 18-06-2024 whereby he was directed to appear personally before the Ethics Committee and to submit various Hospital records pertaining to staffing, qualification and administrative policies. It is stated, he replied vide letter dated 16-7-2024 reiterating the facts stated in the earlier reply. He was further issued notice on 03-02-2025 levelling certain allegations about the violations of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulation Act, 2002 as well as Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act 2019 and he was sensitized regarding removal of his name from the Medical Register by invoking suitable provisions under Indian Medical Act, 1956. He further stated that Dr. He further stated that Dr. Yeggana who is associated with the State Legal and anti-Quackery Committee circulated messages on 10-10-2024 in Whats App groups with regard to the subject issue and in the process, maligned petitioner. He further asserted that the authority who issued notices does not have the power to initiate any proceedings or to issue any such notices under Clinical Establishment Act, 2010. He further pointed out and relied upon certain Regulations and Acts in the process of establishing that notices were issued without power. Petitioner denied committing any irregularities or violations and contended that notices are to be declared as illegal and arbitrary. 2.2. The field relating to regulation, registration, inspection, and oversight of clinical establishments is comprehensively and exclusively governed by the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. It is this statute, and not the Indian Medical Council Act or the Ethics Regulations of 2002 that prescribes the procedure, authority and mechanisms for inspecting hospitals and enforcing compliance standards. Section 33 of the 2010 Act lays down the manner in which inspections must be conducted. This statutory framework makes it abundantly clear that the power to inspect and regulate clinical establishments lies only with the designated authority under the Act and not with the Respondent No. 2. Consequently, any inspection or regulatory action purportedly undertaken by the Respondent No. 2 stands vitiated for want of jurisdiction. 2.3. It is stated, the impugned notice alleges that petitioner violated various provisions of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, namely Regulations 1.2.1, 6.1.1, 6.4.1, 7.19, 7.1, 8.1, 1.1.3 and 1.6, as well as Section 34 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and he is guilty of "infamous conduct in a professional respect." The inspection report, which forms the very basis of the action proposed by the Respondent No. 2, does not contain any finding, remark or observation alleging that he personally committed any of the violations contemplated in the above provisions. The inspection report does not attribute any act of solicitation, advertising, fee- splitting, unqualified practice, or employment of unregistered personnel. There is not a single entry in the inspection report that identifies or implicates him individually. Thus, the allegations in the impugned notice have no factual foundation and, in any event, pertain, if at all, to the institution/hospital and not to petitioner in individual capacity. There is not a single entry in the inspection report that identifies or implicates him individually. Thus, the allegations in the impugned notice have no factual foundation and, in any event, pertain, if at all, to the institution/hospital and not to petitioner in individual capacity. The attempt to personally charge him with alleged institutional lapses is wholly arbitrary, unsupported by any material, and liable to be set aside. 2.4. Petitioner is stated to have filed earlier Writ Petition No. 4946 of 2025 challenging notice dated 03.02.2025 on substantially similar grounds and it was allowed by order dated 23.04.2025 setting aside the notice after holding that the procedure mandated under Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Enquiry Proceedings under the Telangana Directories Registration Act, 1968 had not been complied with. It was observed that unless the said Rule is strictly followed, no notice or disciplinary action initiated thereunder can be sustained in law. The said judicial pronouncement has, therefore, attained finality and binds Respondent No. 2. 2.5. According to petitioner, the issues raised by Respondent No. 2 pertain, if at all, to the functioning and administrative practices of the Hospital and not to him in individual capacity; the allegations relate to institutional compliance and operational procedures, which fall squarely within the domain of the hospital as a separate legal and administrative entity, and cannot be attributed to him personally. Any alleged violation by the institution cannot, either in law or on facts, be imputed to an individual who was merely discharging administrative responsibilities who is not saddled with the administrative power of the Hospital and who had already resigned from the said position well prior to the issuance of the impugned notice. The liability of a clinical establishment, if any, must remain with the establishment itself and cannot be transposed onto him in order to unjustly target or penalize me. Hence, issuance of notice dated 29.10.2025 which is impugned in this Writ Petition is in continuation of the proceedings of the earlier notice dated 03.02.2025. Impugned notice was issued solely to harass him. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. On 28.11.2025, this Court dispensed with the hearing on notice dated 29.10.2025 and the said order was extended from time to time. 4. Respondent No.2 filed counter stating that Writ Petition is not maintainable since it is premature to arrive at a conclusion described by petitioner. Impugned notice was issued solely to harass him. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. On 28.11.2025, this Court dispensed with the hearing on notice dated 29.10.2025 and the said order was extended from time to time. 4. Respondent No.2 filed counter stating that Writ Petition is not maintainable since it is premature to arrive at a conclusion described by petitioner. It is stated that Writ Petition is filed on a misconception which is based on imagination. As per Section 12 of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act 1968 (for short, ‘the Act’), a Council can appoint Enquiry Commission from time to time for enquiry. Section 20 (iv) of the Act empowers the Council to conduct enquiries. The procedure followed by the respondent is as per provisions envisaged under the Acts and Regulations and there is no illegality in issuing the notice to ascertain the facts which came to the notice of the Council. 4.1. It is stated that as per Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (Compulsory Rural Medical Service and Compulsory Government Service-Renewal of Registration, Visiting or Inspecting the Hospital or Nursing Home or Institution) Rules, 2013 issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 129, dated 08.08.2013, (1) The Chairman of the Council may constitute one or more Committees each consisting of two or three members. (2) The Committee or Committees so constituted shall perform the following functions, namely; (a) Inquire suo motu or on a petition presented to the Chairman. (b) Visit or inspect, either by giving a notice or surprisingly, any hospital or Nursing home or institution or places where unethical practices are alleged to be in vogue. (c) Visit or inspect either any hospital or nursing home or institution or place where un-qualified persons or quacks or doctors who do not belong to Modern System of Scientific Medicine but are practicing modern medicine and are prescribing drugs of modern medicine. (d) Visit or inspect any hospital or nursing home or institution or place where the medical practitioners whose names were removed from the register are alleged to be continuing to practice without surrendering the certificate of registration without sufficient cause." 4.2. (d) Visit or inspect any hospital or nursing home or institution or place where the medical practitioners whose names were removed from the register are alleged to be continuing to practice without surrendering the certificate of registration without sufficient cause." 4.2. As per the Rules Regulating the Procedure at an Enquiry held under Sections 15 and 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registrations Act, 1968, after Preliminary procedure contemplated under Rules 1 to 3 has been completed, under Rule 4 (2) 'If the Council considers that the case is one in which an enquiry under Sections 15 and 17 of the Act ought to be held, the Chairman shall direct the Registrar to take steps for explanations already furnished by me in response to earlier notice are vague and false and are hence denied. It is stated that the statutory authority for initiating action against petitioner has been explained in detail in the above paras. It is further submitted that the averment pertaining to purported disregard of the mandatory procedural requirements is vague without disclosing as to which specific mandatory procedural requirements have been purportedly disregarded. 4.3. It is also stated, petitioner being the Medical Director, was responsible for overseeing clinical functions of the institution and he cannot contend that he resigned as Medical Director of the Hospital; his actions during his tenure as Medical Director of the 3 rd Respondent would be subject to scrutiny and necessary action to be taken for violations if any under the 1968 Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is staed, the State Legal, Ethical, and Anti-Quackery Committee, General Body of the 2 nd Respondent has not taken any such decision to purportedly suspend Petitioner as alleged or at all in the said "unknown" forwarded WhatsApp message. Show cause notice dated 03.04.2025 has been issued to Dr. Yegganna Srinivas, Member of the 2nd Respondent giving him an opportunity to submit his explanation to the allegations made against him by the Petitioner in Para 8 of the Writ Affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No. 4946 of 2025 and also to justify why action should not be taken against him for the aforesaid lapse if any on his part. Further, in the interest of the principles of natural justice, Dr. Yegganna Srinivas was withdrawn from Case No. TSMC/L&AQ/Ethics/42 pertaining to Petitioner pending further enquiry against him and until further orders. 4.4. Further, in the interest of the principles of natural justice, Dr. Yegganna Srinivas was withdrawn from Case No. TSMC/L&AQ/Ethics/42 pertaining to Petitioner pending further enquiry against him and until further orders. 4.4. It is stated that the assumption of petitioner that the Clinical Establishments (Registrations ad Regulation) Act, 2010 and the Rules made there under to the exclusion of all others alone has the power authority to inspect a hospital or clinical establishment is wholly misconceived, misplaced and is false. This Respondent has the authority and power to inspect a hospital or clinical establishment and take necessary steps and actions thereof. It is also stated, the instances of offenses and of Professional misconduct which are given above do not constitute and are not intended to constitute a complete list of the infamous acts which calls for disciplinary action, and that by issuing this notice, the Medical Council of India or State Medical Councils are in no way precluded from considering and dealing with any other form of professional misconduct on the part of registered practitioner. Circumstances may and do arise from time to time in relation to which there may occur questions of professional misconduct which do not come within any of these categories. Every care should be taken that the code is not violated in letter or spirit. In such instances, the Medical Council of India and/or State Medical Councils have to consider and decide upon the facts brought before the Medical Council of India and/or State Medical Councils. 4.5. This Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 in Writ Petition No. 4946 of 2025 observed as follows: "5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondent No.2, this Court, without going into the merits or demerits of the case and without making any observations on the issues involved, deems it appropriate to set aside the notice issued to the petitioner, as it does not comply with Rule 6 of the Regulatory Procedure Governing Enquiries under the Telangana Directories Registration Act, 1968. Unless and until the said Rule is fully complied with, the issuance of such notice cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said notice is set aside. Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accordance with law." 4.6. Unless and until the said Rule is fully complied with, the issuance of such notice cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said notice is set aside. Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accordance with law." 4.6. It is pertinent to state that the averments of Petitioner in para 15 contradicts his own averments in para 13 and it demonstrates the mala fides on his part. The impugned notice is the initial notice of a detailed Enquiry procedure contemplated under the Act and Rules and it was issued strictly in terms of the Form appended to the said Rules. Therefore, it is submitted that that the present writ petition is premature and grossly misconceived. 5. Petitioner filed the reply denying the averments in the counter filed by the 2 nd respondent. 6. Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2. 7. Though petitioner raised several pleas touching upon the authority of the 2 nd respondent to issue the impugned notice and as to how he is responsible having retired from the post of Medical Doctor of Respondent No.3 for the alleged violation of the provisions of various Acts and Regulations found mention in the impugned notice, etcetera, this Court is of the opinion that he can as well agitate the same before the Respondent No.2 Council by submitting his explanation to the show cause notice. In view of the same, it is appropriate for this Court to dispose of the Writ Petition in that direction. 8. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of directing petitioner to submit representation / explanation raising all the issues which were pointed out in this Writ Petition, including the question of power of the Authority to issue notices, within two weeks from today. Respondent No.2, on such submission, is directed to consider the representation of petitioner, provide him personal hearing and pass appropriate orders within two weeks thereafter. No costs. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.