IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19949 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.K.SUBRAMANYA BHATT, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O LATE DR. K.K. BHAT, SHRIVARI HOUSE, MAVUNGAL, OPP.RAMDAS SISUMANDIR, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR, THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCILS, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 35. 2. THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE MODERN MEDICINES, THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCILS, RED CROSS ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 35. 3. INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KANHANGAD BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR. DRUHIN A.V., T.B. ROAD JUNCTION, PUTHIYOTTA, KANHANGAD 671 315. 4. DR. T.V. PADMANABHAN, CIVIL SURGEON & CHILD SPECIALIST, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KANHANGAD. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P (C) .No.19949 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P24 and P25, whereby the authority under the Travancore - Cochin Medical Council has taken a decision to the effect that the petitioner is not a Sonologist which, according to the petitioner, is against the legal provisions applicable. The petitioner's contention is that under law he is entitled to practice as a Sonologist which right is seriously impaired by Exts.P24 and P25. Petitioner's contention is that the decision to this effect ought to have been taken by the Medical Council only after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that had he been given an opportunity, he could have convinced the authority that he is legally entitled to practice as a W.P (C) .No.19949 of 2008 - 2 - Sonologist. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P26. Since Ext.P24 is signed with the designation, “Appellate Authority”, the petitioner has also addressed Ext.P26 to the appellate authority under the Travancore - Cochin Medical Council. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P26 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 2. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P26, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this W.P (C) .No.19949 of 2008 - 3 - judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the 2nd respondent for compliance. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs