CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: January 16, 2009. Parties Name Angrej Singh ...PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. S.S.Panag, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. JASBIR SINGH, J. Judgment. In this writ petition, it is the allegation of the petitioner that Gurdeep Singh, respondent No. 4, by wrongly proclaiming himself to be Dental Doctor, is running a Clinic in shop No. 811/6, Toor Market, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, for the last 13 – 14 years. He does not have the requisite qualification to his credit, to run the above said profession. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the said respondent has put up a signboard outside his shop. The petitioner was misled by the representation of respondent No. 4 and went to him for a tooth problem. After getting the medicine, against payment, instead of help curing the problem, the same CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2007 -2- became more acute. On enquiry, petitioner came to know that respondent No. 4 was not a qualified Doctor and that he was working as a Clerk with respondent No. 2. Petitioner alleges that respondent No. 4 has violated the service rules as also the rules formulated by Dental Council of Punjab . The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the authorities concerned on October 5, 2006, which failed to yield any result. Hence this writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is apparent from the record that upon receipt of the notice, respondent No. 1 got conducted an enquiry with regard to the allegations, levelled by the petitioner in his complaint dated October 5, 2006, through Senior Medical Officer, Incharge, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, who in his report said that on a surprise visit, Dr. Simranjit Singh son of Gurdeep Singh, respondent No. 4, was found doing Dental practice in the given property. It was further observed that he has the requisite qualification to carry on the said profession. In reply, filed by respondent No. 1, it has been stated as under:- “4. That the contents of the 1st part of this para are related to the Respondent No. 3. Regarding second part of this para, it is submitted that an enquiry was got conducted against respondent No. 4 through Senior Medical Officer Incharge Civil Hospital, Ludhiana by the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana. The Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana intimated this office that the said enquiry revealed that Dr. Simranjeet s/o Sh. Gurdip Singh was found practicing Dental Practice at the clinic alleged to be run by respondent No. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2007 -3- 4. It further revealed that Dr. Simranjeet Singh S/o Sh. Gurdip Singh possesses degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S.) issued by the Baba Farid University. He has also been registered with the Punjab Dental Council, Chandigarh vide registration No. 4638-A (Pb.) 06 dated 9-3-2006. The copy of B.D.S. Degre and certificate of registration are enclosed as Annexure R-1 and R-II respectively. Copy of the enquiry report is enclosed as Annexure R-III. 5. That the contents of the para 5 of the writ petition are denied as on receipt of complaint an enquiry was marked to the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana vide letter No. Drugs (2) Pb. 07/ 6686 dated 6-6-07 and the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana sent his enquiry report vide his letter No. Drugs/ 07/ 1276 dated 19- 6-2007 and as per enquiry report respondent No. 4 was not found practicing as Dental Doctor as alleged by the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that Dr. Simranjit Singh was practicing Dental practise at the said site. The position has been explained in para 4 above.” To the same effect is the reply filed by respondent No. 3. Taking note of the contents of the replies filed on October 8, 2007, this writ petition was dismissed and cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner then filed a review application and also annexed with it some documents including written-statement filed by respondent No. 4 before the Court below, where his litigation was pending with his landlord. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2007 -4- In the above said written-statement dated July 17, 2007( in para No. 2 of document Annexure P-4) it was averred as under by respondent No. 4: “2. Para No. 2 of the plaint is admitted to the extent that defendant is running his Dental Clinic since 12.10.1992. Rest of the para is wrong and denied. It is denied that defendant is running his Dental Clinic without any interruption from any side. The plaintiff is pressurising and creating obstructions in the smooth running of the Dental Clinic.” Similarly, in another document (P-3), filed by respondent No. 4, in a pending litigation, in para No. 2 (b), it was averred as under: “The present petition has been filed with malafide intention to upset the clinic of respondent who is using the shop as a Dental Clinic and he has gained a good reputation due to his ability in the profession. It will be a great hardship to the respondent in case the shop is ordered to be vacated.” Both the documents were drafted in the month of February, 2007. By taking note of facts, mentioned above, order dated October 8, 2007, dismissing this writ petition was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number. We feel that in the face of his sworn affidavit and written- statement, P-3 and P-4 respectively, respondent No. 4 cannot say that he was not running a Dental Clinic. In the above said two documents, he has posed himself as Doctor whereas, admittedly he is working as a Clerk with respondent No. 2. To the contrary, enquiry conducted by the police CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2007 -5- department and the health department indicates that in the given property, Dr. Simranjit Singh son of respondent No. 4 was running a Dental Clinic. Respondent No. 4 in his affidavit (P-4) has clearly stated that he had been running the above said Clinic since October 12, 1992. Admittedly, son of respondent No. 4 got registered with Punjab Dental Council, to run practice as a Dental Surgeon, on March 9, 2006. He had passed his Bachelor of Dental Surgery course on April 4, 2006. As per averments made in documents Annexures P-3 and P-4, the respondent No. 4 had been running Dental Clinik since the year 1992. If that is so, tentatively we are of the opinion that he has violated the service rules, as being in Government service, he cannot run another business. Furthermore being not qualified to run Dental Clinic, he had been indulging in the above said profession without any justification. In view of facts, mentioned above, we dispose of this writ petition and direct the Registrar, Punjab Dental Council, Chandigarh, to look into the matter and verify as to whether respondent No. 4 had been running the Dental Clinic without any authority. If the answer to the same is affirmative, the Registrar of the Council shall initiate appropriate action, as per law. The Registrar of the Council is further directed to send his report to the Chairman, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation at Patiala for initiating necessary action against respondent No. 4. It is made clear that before making any report, the Registrar shall provide a reasonable opportunity to respondent No. 4 to present his case. Opportunity of hearing be also provided to the complainant, if he wishes to do so. Registry is directed to send copy of this order, along with a complete paper book and also complete copy of Review Application No. 301 of 2007 including annexures CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2007 -6- to the Registrar of the Council forthwith. The officer concerned is directed to do the needful within a period of two months. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( T. S. Thakur ) January 16th , 2009. Chief Justice DKC