IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 33819 of 2011(B) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- DR.SANDEEP S KUMAR, AGED 25, S/O.R.SUKUMARAN, PROPRIETOR, EDAMANA AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, PAMBURAM, PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) SMT.TINY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM - 691 001. 3. K.RAJESH, S/O.NANU ACHARY VAIDYAR, EDAMANA HOUSE, PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 574. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33819 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE BAMS PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE, KARNATAKA DT.13/04/11. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE DT.16/05/11 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY AKHILA KERALA PARAMBARIYA VAIDYA FEDERATION TO 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE YEAR 1998. EXT.P4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SIDDHA MARUTHUVA GURUKULAM TO 3RD RESPONDENT 01/08/07. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO 3RD RESPONENT 28/11/11. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.01/12/11. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.14/12/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.33819 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner who claims to be the proprietor of Edamana Ayurveda Hospital at Pamburam in Kollam District complains that the 1st respondent is harassing him every now and then alleging that the petitioner is practising medicine by engaging the 3rd respondent who is not authorised to practice Ayurveda. 2. On considering this Writ Petition for admission we directed the State Attorney who took notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to seek instructions as to the truth of the accusations of harassment. Today, Sri.Shyson P. Manguzha, the learned Government Pleader representing the State Attorney submitted that the accusations of harassment by the 1st respondent, are not correct. There has been a fallout between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. W. P. C. No.33819 of 2011 -2- Cases have been registered against the 3rd respondent. Information was received by the police that Edamana Ayurveda Hospital is being conducted even now by the 3rd respondent who is not authorised to practise Ayurvedic medicine, with the connivance of the petitioner. It was in connection with an enqury into such information that the police requested the attendance of the petitioner. This cannot be branded as harassment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not correct to say that the building where the 3rd respondent was obviously practising medicine is being used by him even now. The building is taken on lease under Ext.P6 by the petitioner. At present, it is the petitioner alone who is practising Ayurveda. According to Sri.R.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent is not being permitted by the petitioner to practise Ayurveda or any other form of medicine from the building covered by Ext.P6. 4. The question that arises before us is whether the W. P. C. No.33819 of 2011 -3- action of the police can be branded as harassment. We are inclined to answer that question in the negative. We record the submission of Sri.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 3rd respondent will not be permitted to occupy the building covered by Ext.P6 and practise Ayurveda medicine therein. Under the above circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition declining the relief sought for by the petitioner. However, we permit the petitioner to practise Ayurveda in the building covered by Ext.P6 lease deed without any obstruction in that regard from the 1st respondent or any other police personnel. At the same time, the 1st respondent can keep vigil and ensure that it is the petitioner only and not the 3rd respondent who occupies and practises Ayurveda in the building covered by Ext.P6. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE W. P. C. No.33819 of 2011 -4-