Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wa 1056-2020
Wa 1056-2020
PRESENT
&
WA.No.1056 OF 2020
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR.SUNIL RAJ.R
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O N. RAJAHAMSAN, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT
HOMOEOPATHIC HOSPITAL ARALAM FARM,KANNUR-670 674.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, AYURVEDIC, YOGA AND
NATUROPATHY, UNANI, SIDDHA AND HOMEOPATHY (AYUSH)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
JUDGMENT
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
in W.A. Nos. 831 and 969 of 2017 filed by the Kerala Government
P9 order State Government has found that the third respondent herein
respective submissions and the pleadings put forth by the parties, has
“9. Having considered the contentions and having perused Ext.P9 impugned
order, I am of the opinion that the Government has considered the relevant
aspects of the matter including the fact that the 3rd respondent had the
infrastructural facilities available and had been granted permission for the
conduct of the NCP course after a due selection procedure. Since the
Government had discontinued the NCP course and had permitted to conduct
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-3-
the CCP (Homoeo) course in the government sector, the decision of the
Government, after examining the infrastructural facilities of the 3rd
respondent, to permit the conduct of the course in the 3rd respondent's
institution cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or violative of the Principles
of the Constitution. Ext.P9 is an informed decision at the Government level.
It is pertinent to note that the challenge is raised, not by any rival institution
but by a Government Medical Officer and in the case of W.P.(C)
No.39971/2018, by persons who have completed the CCP (Homoeo) course
from the government institutions. I am of the opinion that the challenge
raised against Ext.P9 is devoid of merits.”
It is thus challenging the legality and validity of the said judgment, this
3. Brief material facts required for the disposal of the appeal are
as follows:
State Government ie., the first respondent. The first respondent, as per
attempting to ensure that the courses are properly conducted and only
the appellant was constrained to challenge the same before this Court
resulting in Ext.P5 judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. Nos. 831 and
969 of 2017 dated 10.07.2017, whereby the issue with respect to the
the CCP (Homoeo) course, the State Government has created a private
4. With the above background facts, the case put forth by the
the Government Colleges and it will materially affect the interests and
be appointed as pharmacists.
writ petition refuting the allegations and the contentions raised by the
in Ext.P9 order.
in the writ petition refuting the allegations and the contentions raised by
legal situations, the learned Single Judge has arrived at the findings
extracted above.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Gens
Goerge Ipe and Sri. Babu Karukapadath appeared for the third
the locus standi, the learned counsel for the appellant has addressed
so, since the Government have not permitted any other private
Apex Court.
Pradesh and others [AIR 1966 Supreme Court 828], the Apex Court
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-7-
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and held that the petitioner, who
“8. The first question is whether the appellant had locus standi to
file a petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
the appellant in that case to file a petition under Article 226 of the
Has the appellant a right to file the petition out of which the present
appeal has arisen? The appellant is the President of the Panchayat
Samithi of Dharmajigudem. The villagers of Dharmajigudem formed a
committee with the appellant as President for the purpose of collecting
contributions from the villagers for setting up the Primary Health
Centre. The said committee collected Rs 10,000 and deposited the same
with the Block Development Officer. The appellant represented the
village in all its dealings with the Block Development Committee and
the Panchayat Samithi in the matter of the location of the Primary
Health Centre at Dharmajigudem. His conduct, the acquiescence on the
part of the other members of the committee, and the treatment meted
out to him by the authorities concerned support the inference that he
was authorized to act on behalf of the committee. The appellant was,
therefore, a representative of the committee which was in law the
trustees of the amounts collected by it from the villagers for a public
purpose. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the appellant had
the right to maintain the application under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This Court held in the decision cited supra that
“ordinarily” the petitioner who seeks to file an application under Article
226 of the Constitution should be one who has a personal or individual
right in the subject-matter of the petition. A personal right need not be
in respect of a proprietary interest: it can also relate to an interest of a
trustee. That apart, in exceptional cases, as the expression “ordinarily”
indicates, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or
omission of an authority can file a writ even though he has no
proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject-matter thereof. The
appellant has certainly been prejudiced by the said order. The petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution at his instance is, therefore,
maintainable.”
others [(1975) 2 SCC 702], the Apex Court has considered, who is a
person 'aggrieved' in the light of the issue raised by the Bar Council as a
person aggrieved and held that a person aggrieved under the Advocates
Act, 1961 are of wide import in the context of the purpose and
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-9-
thereafter held that the word “person” will embrace the Bar Council
which represents the Bar of the State and secondly, the Bar Council is “a
acts as the protector of the purity and dignity of the profession. Thirdly,
it was held that the function of the Bar Council in entertaining complaints
against advocates is when the Bar Council has reasonable belief that
is entrusted with such inquiry, which indicates that the Bar Council is all
“27. The words “person aggrieved” are found in several statutes. The
meaning of the words “person aggrieved” will have to be ascertained
with reference to the purpose and the provisions of the statute.
Sometimes, it is said that the words “person aggrieved” correspond to
the requirement of locus standi which arises in relation to judicial
remedies.
28. Where a right of appeal to courts against an administrative or
judicial decision is created by statute, the right is invariably confined
to a person aggrieved or a person who claims to be aggrieved. The
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-10-
[1981 Suppl. SCC 87], which considered the question of locus standi in
other person or persons for whose benefit the action is brought, arising
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-11-
interest, and in the case, what was complained of was a specific legal
It has also considered the issue where the State or a public authority
private injury, who would have standing to complain against such act or
question, can any member of the public sue for judicial redress? Or the
18. xxxxxxxx If the State or any public authority acts beyond the
scope of its power and thereby causes a specific legal injury to a person or
also if the duty is owed by the State or any public authority to a person or to
or any public authority and the injury is caused only to public interest, the
question arises as to who can maintain an action for vindicating the rule of
law and setting aside the unlawful action or enforcing the performance of
the public duty. If no one can maintain an action for redress of such public
wrong or public injury, it would be disastrous for the rule of law, for it would
be open to the State or a public authority to act with impunity beyond the
scope of its power or in breach of a public duty owed by it. The courts
left to the sweet will of the authority bound by it, without any redress if the
law is contravened. The view has therefore been taken by the courts in
contrary to the Constitution or the law, any member of the public acting
bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal
of such public wrong or public injury. The strict rule of standing which
insists that only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury can
maintain an action for judicial redress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved
which gives standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busy
proceeding. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This broadening of the Rule of locus standi has been largely responsible for
the development of public law, because it is only the availability of judicial
remedy for enforcement which invests law with meaning and purpose or
else the law would remain merely a paper parchment, a teasing illusion and
a promise of unreality. It is only by liberalising the Rule of locus standi that it
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-13-
having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for
public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some
absolutely essential for maintaining the rule of law, furthering the cause of
objectives.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
standi in the writ petition of Iqbal Chagla in which alone this question has
been sharply raised, it will be obvious that the petitioners had clearly and
indisputably locus standi to maintain their writ petition. The petitioners are
President of the Incorporated Law Society. There can be no doubt that the
essential and integral part of the judicial system and lawyers may
their help, it would be well nigh impossible for the Court to administer
justice. They are really and truly officers of the Court in which they daily sit
public authority, they would naturally be concerned about it, because they
are equal partners with the Judges in the administration of justice. Iqbal
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as to the locus standi was considered by the
Apex Court in Maharaj Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others [(1977) 1
“19. Aside from this stand, it is easy to take the view that the first
plaintiff is ‘a person aggrieved’ and has the competence to carry an
appeal against the dismissal of the suit. Of course, he who has a
proprietary right, which has been or is threatened to be violated, is
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-15-
13. So also, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited our
[(2011) 5 SCC 29] to canvass that policy of allotting land on the basis of
relying upon the judgment, the point that was put forth by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that no exception can be taken to the use of
14. Now coming back to the case, the soul of the contention
that in Ext.P9, the State Government has clearly assigned reasons while
while granting permission as per Ext.P9, the Government has clearly laid
per Exts.P1 and P2 orders the Government has taken a stand that CCP
by the appellant that he has locus standi, since Ext.P9 order is arbitrary
16. The learned Government Pleader has also invited our attention
Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed [(1976) 1 SCC 671], wherein the
34 to 39:
“34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to
have the locus siandi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal
or individual right in the subject-matter of the application, though in
the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this
rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule,
infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest
inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the
matter, (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12 :
1952 SCR 28] ; Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044 :
1962 Supp (3) SCR 1] ; Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of
Revenue, Orissa [(1967) 1 SCA 413] ; Gadde Venkateswara
Rao v. Government of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828 : (1966) 2 SCR
172] ; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall [(1973) 3 SCC
739] ; Satyanarayana Sinha Dr v. S. Lal & Co. [(1973) 2 SCC 696 :
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-21-
17. The learned counsel for the third respondent has also relied
that the appellant has no locus standi, since he is not a person aggrieved
since no case was made out by the appellant before the writ court that
It is further submitted that Exts.P1 and P2 orders only deal with the CCP
(Homoeo) course and the only requirement contained under Exts.P1 and
Government and that in the certificate course for the year 2014-2015,
create any fetter to any person applying for permission to conduct the
18. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar.
other hand, it is quite clear and evident from Ext.P1 policy that it was
realised that Nurse cum Pharmacy (NCP) course is not beneficial in the
The Government have examined the matter in detail and thereupon, the
specific and unequivocal that the Government have only issued certain
for the year 2015-2016. We are of the considered opinion that at any
stretch of imagination, Exts.P1 and P2 have not given any indication that
(Homoeo) course in the private sector. It was accordingly that the issue
“ORDER
In the judgment dtd 10.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No.20803/2016 filed by
Kerala Government Homoeo Medical Officer's Association the Hon'ble High
Court had directed to comply with the direction of Hon'ble Court after affording
an opportunity of being heard to a representative of the petitioner, 3 rd
respondent, the 4th respondent and a representative of the 5th respondent and
after averting to all relevant materials including Exhibit P10 report and ratio and
directions contained in Exhibit P11 and P13 judgments as expeditiously as
possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment.
2. Accodingly, the petitioner and the respondents 3 rd, 4th and 5th were
heard on 17.04.2017 in the presence of the Principal and Controlling Officer,
Government Homoeo Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. Later, in another
judgment in W.A.No. 831/2017 & 969/2017 filed by Kerala Government
Homoeo Medical Officer's Association & Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission Trust,
the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had also directed the Secretary to conclude the
hearing, if not already concluded and if the hearing had been concluded as the
proceedings have been stayed by this Court for sometime, it would only be fit
and proper to allow the parties to address their problems and issues once again.
However, the Secretary would ensure that a decision, one way or the other, is
taken at the earliest preferably within one month after hearing the parties.
3. In accordance with the directions contained in the judgment dtd.
10.03.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 20803/2016 filed by Kerala Government Homoeo
Medical Officer's Association Government had heard the petitioners on
17.04.2017. Since Government had already heard the petitioners including
parties in the Writ Appeal case before the judgment dtd. 10.07.2017 in W.A. No.
831/2017 and 969/2017. Government had moved further without hearing the
parties again with the sense that the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-28-
Kerala were complied with in true spirit. After hearing the pros and cons of the
parties the Government had decided to inspect whether the infrastructural
facilities were available at the Dr. AKB Sadhbhavan Mission Institute. As per
GO read as 6th paper above a team consisting of three members were constituted
for inspecting the infrastructure facilities available in the institution and the team
inspected the instruction on 16.10.2017 and submitted a report. In the report it
was stated that the institution have all the infrastructure facilities for starting
CCP course. Considering all these facts, Government have issued order
permitting the Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission Trust, Kozhikode to start CCP
Course subject to the conditions which will be framed by Government including
the condition that 50% of the total seats will be filled up by the Government vide
GO read as 7th paper above.
4. Now, Dr. Sunil Raj R, President of Kerala Government Homoeo
Medical Officers Association has filed a Contempt of Court case CC(C) No.
669/2018 alleging violation on the stipulations contained in Annexure A1
judgment to the effect that, even if hearing had been conducted, the parties
should be heard once again has been violated. In its judgment dated 08.06.2018
the Hon'ble Court has given an opinion that either to face the contempt or to
pass fresh orders after giving the report of the committee to the parties. In the
judgment dtd 08.06.2018 in CC(C) No. 669/2018, read as 8 th paper above, it is
directed to re-hear the parties after furnishing a copy of the report submitted by
the 3 member committee constituted as per GO(Rt) No. 385/2017/AYUSH dated
03.08.2017.
5. In compliance of the directions contained in the judgment read as 8 th
paper above the concerned parties were heard on 02.07.2018 after furnishing a
copy of the report to them. The President of Dr. AKB Sadbhavana Mission
Trust and Sri. Gokul G.S have submitted separate representations, wherein it is
stated that they have nothing to present before the Government other than the
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-29-
earlier notes presented by them in person as well as in writing. Dr. Sunil Raj,
President of Kerala Government Homoeo Medical Officers Association
(KHGMOA) has also submitted a representation at the time of hearing. In the
representation it is stated that GO(Rt) No. 84/2018/AYUSH dated 21.02.2018
issued in purported compliance of the common judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Kerala, dated 10th July in WA Nos.831/2017 and 969/2017 without
hearing the KGHMOA went totally beyond the scope of the judgment, which
has only directed the Government to decide on the legality of the GO(Rt) No.
160/2016/AYUSH dated 07.04.2016. It is also requested to invalidate the
GO(Rt) No. 160/2016/AYUSH, dtd 07.04.2016. In addition to this, Dr. Sunil
Raj stated in the hearing that they have no objection to start CCP course in AKB
Mission Trust but the Trust must conduct the CCP Course only in accordance
with the Government instructions/prospectus and in tune with the norms
applicable to Govt. Colleges in all respect. The recruitment of the students will
be done only through the list published by the LBS like the admissions being
done in Government Colleges. He has also demanded to withdraw the GO(Rt)
No. 84/2018/AYUSH dated 21.02.2018 and issue an order including the above
said conditions also.
As per GO read as 1st paper above Government had discontinued the NCP
course from the Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges. But, in view of
the existing agreement and court directions the Dr. AKB Sadhbhavana Mission
Trust, Kozhikode was permitted to conduct a final batch of the NCP course.
After that the trust had again approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court through an
SLP (Civil) No.(S) 25059/2013, and in pursuant to the judgment dated
28.10.2013 pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Government have
permitted for continuing the NCP Course in the institution of Dr. AKB
Sadhbhavana Mission Trust under the conditions stipulated in the Agreement
dtd. 04.07.2015 vide GO read as 4th paper above.
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-30-
Bhooshan V
Additional Secretary
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-31-
Annexure
the appellant that the action of the Government is also arbitrary, since it
violates the policy declared by the State Government as per Exts.P1 and
P2, is not sustainable under law, for the very same reason. There is
also no basis for the contention advanced by the appellant that the
the view that in the medical field, courses are being conducted by
true, there may be circumstances where any member of the public may
materially affecting the public. The dictum laid down by the Apex Court
in the above discussed judgments would make it clear that, the legal
injury suffered by the person who have invoked the jurisdiction under
from the facts and circumstances put forth by him. In the case at hand,
consequent to the violation of Exts.P1 and P2, the alleged policy declared
any private institutions entering the field of the CCP course. Situations
being so, we do not think that the proposition of law canvassed by the
appellant flowing out of the judgements supra, would come to the rescue
case of the 3rd respondent. Moreover, even though the appellant has
of the Government. The sole reason stated is that there would be fall of
unable to accept the same since from the Anenxure attached to Ext.P9
CCP (Homoeo) course. Which thus means, the appellant has failed to
out any specific instance of such an injury. We also do not think that any
that matter, the appellant and so also, we could not locate any injurious
that regard. That apart, it was submitted by the appellant that the earlier
round of litigation was authored by him, but from the records we find
the matter and how and under what circumstances suddenly the issue
the appeal, that unregulated conduct of the CCP (Homoeo) course in the
private sector would adversely affect the prospects of the students who
W.A. No. 1056 of 2020
-36-
significance, especially due to the fact that appellant has failed to specify
the starting of the CCP (Homoeo) course in private sector would affect
Colleges. Anyhow, none of the students have come forward with any
Homoeo Doctor has filed the writ petition without bothering to narrate
pursuing the matter. Assimilating the facts and the the legal situations,
we do not think that the appellant has made out a case of locus standi
22. Yet another contention put forth by the learned counsel for the
has only directed the Government to consider the issue with respect to
the conduct of the NCP course by the third respondent Trust; but the
we do not find any merit in the said submission, since, even though the
issue before the Division Bench was only with respect to the conduct of
Upshot of the above discussion is, the appellant has not made out
accordingly dismissed.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
JUDGE.
Rv