Dr. Anil Grover v. Delhi Medical Council And ORS.

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10779/2017 DR. ANIL GROVER ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr Rajesh Banati and Mr Tarun Walia, Advocates.

versus DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr Praveen Khattar, Advocate for R1, DMC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R D E R

% 05.12.2017 CM No. 44144/2017 1.

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 10779/2017 and CM No. 44143/2017 3.

Issue notice.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 accepts notice. 5.

The principal question that involved in this petition is whether the State Medical Council (in this case DMC) has the discretion not to suspend a registered medical practitioner if charges are framed by a Court against the said medical practitioner framed under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act,1994 (hereafter 'the Act').

6.

This Court is of the prima facie view that the State Medical Council would have to exercise its discretion and take a prima facie view, after hearing the concerned medical practitioner, before suspending his registration as a medical practitioner.

7.

In the present case, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.07.2015 and the only ground stated in the show cause notice was that a charge had been framed against the petitioner under the said Act. The petitioner had responded to the said show cause notice by a letter dated 16.07.2015 inter alia stating that the order framing charges had been stayed at the material time. Concededly, no further communication was issued by the Delhi Medical Council (hereafter 'DMC').

8.

It appears that DMC has proceeded to suspend the petitioner by an order dated 23.10.2017 (which is impugned in the present petition) as the stay against the order framing charges was vacated. 9.

Admittedly, no further show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner had no opportunity to present its case before the DMC. 10.

The learned counsel for the parties state that it is not necessary for this Court to decide the question raised in the present petition and the petitioner may be relegated to exhausting the statutory remedies. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Medical Council of India (hereafter 'MCI') against the impugned order of DMC. 11.

In view of the above, the present petition alongwith the application is disposed of by staying the impugned order till the MCI decides the

petitioner's appeal.

12.

It is clarified that this is without prejudice to the DMC's contention that MCI is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate an appeal against the order of DMC.

13.

Order dasti.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 05, 2017 RK