9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1204 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking restoration of name of the petitioner which was directed to be struck off from the Indian Medical register for a period of three years - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that as interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 1956 and validity of Clause 8.8 is pending consideration before the Supreme Court in 1992 (4) TMI 183 - SUPREME COURT , it would be appropriate to await the said judgment - This Court with utmost humility would like to state that it is not in agreement with the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in Pijush Kanti Chowdhury 2007 (5) TMI 559 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , as it is of the opinion that once a stay order has been passed by a superior court, the order of the lower court ceases to operate till the stay order is in effect. In fact, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras 1992 (4) TMI 183 - SUPREME COURT relied upon in Pijush Kanti Chowdhury 2007 (5) TMI 559 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT itself lays down that stay of an operation of an order means that the order would not be operative. List the matter in the category of 'Regular Matters' according to its seniority. The impugned order passed by the Ethics Committee of MCI dated 27th October, 2012 and the decision of the erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI dated 10th December, 2012 are stayed till disposal of the petition - Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the order passed by the Ethics Committee of MCI and the decision of the erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI. 2. Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 3. Validity of Clause 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. 4. Jurisdiction of MCI to entertain appeals under Clause 8.8. 5. Binding effect of the Calcutta High Court's judgment and the Supreme Court's stay order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the Order Passed by the Ethics Committee of MCI and the Decision of the Erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI: The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 27th October 2012 by the Ethics Committee of MCI and the decision dated 10th December 2012 by the erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI, which directed the petitioner's name to be struck off from the Indian Medical Register for three years. The complaint was initially filed by the husband and father of the deceased with the Delhi Medical Council (DMC). The MCI's impugned decision was in response to an appeal under Clause 8.8 of the Regulations, 2002. 2. Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956: The court called upon the parties to assist in interpreting Section 24(2) of the Act, 1956, which pertains to the appellate jurisdiction of the Central Government over decisions made by the State Medical Councils. The provision's interpretation was crucial in determining whether the MCI had the authority to entertain appeals under Clause 8.8 of the Regulations, 2002. 3. Validity of Clause 8.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002: Clause 8.8 allows any person aggrieved by a State Medical Council's decision to appeal to the MCI within sixty days. The Calcutta High Court, in Dr. (Mrs.) Rupa Basu (Banerjee) vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., had held Clause 8.8 unconstitutional, as it exceeded the powers conferred under Section 33(m) of the Act, 1956. This judgment was under appeal, and the Supreme Court had stayed the operation of the Calcutta High Court's decision, thereby reviving the Single Judge's judgment declaring Clause 8.8 unconstitutional. 4. Jurisdiction of MCI to Entertain Appeals under Clause 8.8: The court examined whether the MCI had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by respondent no. 2 under Clause 8.8 when the order declaring it unconstitutional was in force. The MCI continued to entertain appeals under Clause 8.8, believing that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. Mr. Karan Bharioke argued that the MCI lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and pass the impugned order. 5. Binding Effect of the Calcutta High Court's Judgment and the Supreme Court's Stay Order: The court considered whether it was bound by the Calcutta High Court's judgment and the Supreme Court's stay order. Mr. Rabin Majumder contended that the Calcutta High Court's judgment was not binding. The court, however, disagreed with the view expressed in Pijush Kanti Chowdhury (supra), asserting that a stay order from a superior court means the lower court's order ceases to operate. Conclusion: The court decided to await the Supreme Court's judgment on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 1956, and the validity of Clause 8.8. Consequently, it stayed the impugned order passed by the Ethics Committee of MCI and the decision of the erstwhile Board of Governors of MCI until the petition's disposal. The application CM Appl. No. 1689/2013 was disposed of, and the matter was listed in the category of 'Regular Matters' according to its seniority.
|
