Civil Writ Petition No.14177 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14177 of 2011 Date of decision: 5.8.2011 Dr. Ramneek Singh Bedi and another ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This petition seeks declaration that the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 is ultra vires the Constitution. Case of the petitioners is that they are medical practitioners having their clinics. The Act lays down the requirement of seeking registration, providing for penal consequences in absence of registration. Registration can be granted only on fulfillment of conditions lays down under the Act. Section 12 (2) of the Act requiring facilities to stablise the emergency medical condition of any individual who is brought to clinical establishment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners requirement of providing for facilities for stablisation of emergency medical condition of an individual is arbitrary and interference with the right of the petitioners to carry on their profession. The petitioners are only running their clinics and they may not be able to provide for facilities for stablising the emergency medical condition of individuals who are brought to such Civil Writ Petition No.14177 of 2011 -2- *** clinics. Those who cannot provide such facilities cannot be debarred from carrying on their medical profession. We are unable to accept the submission. Clinical establishment as defined under Section 2(c) covers various types of clinical establishment. Facilities for stablising, expected to be provided in each such establishment, will obviously mean facilities expected from the type of clinical establishment run, by an institution or an individual. An individual medical practitioner may not be expected to do something impossible by providing facilities at par with a big hospital. Interpretation of a statutory provision depends upon situation which may arise. The provisions of the Act do not create any impossible situation so as to affect the right of the petitioners to practice the medical profession. There is, thus, no ground to interfere at this stage. The individual fact situation can be considered as and when the same arises. The writ petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice August 05, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge