M/S GLENEAGLES HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs DR SUNIL SHENVI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 33361 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 31586 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 33361/2025
BETWEEN:
1. DR.PRADEEP KRISHNA R.V.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O RAMA KRISHNAPPA M.,
RESIDING AT NO.28, ITI LAYOUT,
TH
8 CROSS, JP NAGAR, FIRST PHASE,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU URBAN - 560 061.
2. DR.PRAMOD KUMAR D.A.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O MR. ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.704,
E BLOCK, ADARSH RHYTHM APARTMENT,
OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BEHIND FORTIS HOSPITAL,
PANDURANGA NAGAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH
BENGALURU - 560 076.
Digitally
signed by
PADMAVATHI
B K
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
3. DR. MAHESH S. GOPASETTY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O MR. SRISAILAPPA GOPASETTY
RESIDING AT D2-1205,
SNN RAJ SERENITY,
BEGUR KOPPA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ANIND THOMAS, SRI VINUDEEP R.,
SRI ABHIJNAN JHA AND SRI CHETAN CHAWLA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. DR.SUNIL SHENVI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O MR. DAYANAND SHENVI,
RESIDING AT NO.G501, MANTI ALPYNE,
DR.VISHNUVARDHAN ROAD,
TH
BANASHANKARI 5 STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
JOINT DIRECTOR (MEDICAL)
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY-
JEEVASARTHAKATHE
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
BENGALURU.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.06.2026)
…RESPONDENTS
- 3 -
(BY SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO-A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE VI ADDL. CJM, BANGALORE, IN PCR NO. 5672/2023
(SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED TO CC NO. 33487/2025), TAKING
COGNIZANCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 18 AND 20 OF THE THOT ACT AND ISSUING SUMMONS
TO THE ACCUSED, QUA THE PETITIONERS (AT ANNEXURE -A);
B. QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 12.04.2023 (AS
AMENDED ON 02.08.2025) IN PCR NO. 5672/2023
(SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED TO CC NO. 33487/2025) FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE VI ADDL. CJM,
BANGALORE FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 18 AND 20 OF THE THOT ACT, QUA THE PETITIONERS,
ALONG WITH THE LIST OF WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS MARKED IN
THE PCR (AT ANNEXURE -B); C. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN CC NO. 33487/2025, ARISING OUT OF PCR NO. 5672/2023,
PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE VI ADDL. CJM,
BANGALORE (AT ANNEXURE- C).
IN WP NO. 31586/2025
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. GLENEAGLES HEALTHCAER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS RAVINDRANATH GE
MEDICAL ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PLOT NO. 439, CHERAN NAGAR PERUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI,
KANCHEEPURAM TAMIL NADU,
INDIA - 600 100
- 4 -
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
DR.ASHWINI AMARESHWAR,
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-LEGAL
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE DR.ASHWINI DAMODAR.
2.
DR. A M KUTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O LATE AT MUTHANNA,
RESIDING AT NO.135,
RAINBOW RESIDENCY,
JUNNASANDRA, OFF SARJAPUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 035.
3. DR. ANANTH RAO
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE D.NANJUNDA RAO,
RESIDING AT 15, SAPTHASHREE,
TH
5 MAIN, UGADI ROAD,
TH
7 CROSS, AKSHAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
4. MR. BIJU NAIR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O MR.SOMAN NAIR
RESIDING AT LH 8, 602,
LANCO HILLS APARTMENT,
MANIKONDA,
HYDERABAD - 500 089.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ANIND THOMAS, SRI VINUDEEP R.,
- 5 -
SRI ABHIJNAN JHA AND SRI CHETAN CHAWLA,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. DR.SUNIL SHENVI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O MR. DAYANAND SHENVI,
RESIDING AT NO.G501, MANTI ALPYNE,
DR.VISHNUVARDHAN ROAD,
TH
BANASHANKARI, 5 STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 061.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
JOINT DIRECTOR (MEDICAL)
APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY-
JEEVASARTHAKATHE
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
BENGALURU.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.06.2026)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NISCHAL DEV B.R., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS.,
PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE VI ADDL. CJM, BANGALORE, IN PCR NO. 5672/2023
(SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED TO CC NO. 33487/2025), TAKING
COGNIZANCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
- 6 -
SECTIONS 18 AND 20 OF THE THOT ACT AND ISSUING SUMMONS
TO THE ACCUSED, QUA THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE- A);
B.QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN PCR NO. 5672/2023
(SUBSEQUENTLY CONVERTED TO CC NO. 33487/2025) FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE VI ADDL. CJM,
BANGALORE FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 18 AND 20 OF THE THOT ACT, QUA THE PETITIONERS
(ANNEXURE -B); C.QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.
33487/2025, ARISING OUT OF PCR NO. 5672/2023, PENDING ON
THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE VI ADDL. CJM, BANGALORE
(ANNEXURE- C).
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Writ Petition No.33361 of 2025 is filed seeking the following
prayer:
a. “Quash the order dated 29-08-2025 passed by the
Hon’ble VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru
in P.C.R.NO.5672 OF 2023 (subsequently converted to
C.C.No.33487/2025), taking cognizance of the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the
THOT Act and issuing summons to the accused, qua the
petitioners (at Annexure-A);
b. Quash the private complaint dated 12-04-2023 (as
amended on 02-08-2025) in P.C.R.No.5672 of 2023
(subsequently converted to C.C.No.33487 of 2025) filed
by the respondent before the Hon’ble VI Additional Chief
- 7 -
Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru for alleged offences
punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the THOT Act,
qua the petitioners along with the list of witnesses and
exhibits marked in the PCR (at Annexure-B);
c. Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.33487 of 2025,
arising out of P.C.R.No.5672 of 2023 pending on the file
of the Hon’ble VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru (at Annexure-C);
d. Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice.”
Similar prayer is sought in Writ Petition No.31586 of 2025.
2. Writ Petition No.33361 of 2025 is preferred by accused
Nos. 4, 5 and 7 and Writ Petition No.31586 of 2025 is preferred by
accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. Therefore, the two petitions form a
challenge by 7 accused in C.C.No.33487 of 2025 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
3. Heard in both the petitions Sri Udaya Holla , learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Nischal Dev B.
st
R. , learned counsel appearing for the 1 respondent/complainant.
- 8 -
4. Since pleadings are common in both the petitions, for the
sake of convenience, facts as obtaining in Writ Petition No.31586 of
2025 would be narrated.
5. Facts, in brief, adumbrated, are as follows:
5.1. It would suffice if the narration would commence from
the date on which the appropriate authority, a statutory authority
established and constituted under the Act, issues a renewed
certificate viz., “BGS Certificate of Registration” to BGS Global
Hospital for performing liver transplantation for 5 years, to be
effective from 30-10-2018 to 29-10-2023. One Dr. Mahesh
Gopasetty, liver transplant surgeon was authorized by the
appropriate authority to conduct liver transplant surgeries. The said
doctor was empanelled at Fortis Hospital, Bannerghatta Road
through a certificate issued by the appropriate authority, again
which was valid from 20-11-2018 to 19-11-2023.
5.2. The complainant one Dr. Sunil Shenvi was engaged as a
consultant in BGS Hospital, through a contract, to provide services
at the hospital. This is the first of the contract entered into between
- 9 -
the hospital and the said doctor. The contract was for a period of
two years. Upon expiry of the first contract, the engagement of the
complainant was renewed by another contract by re-negotiating
commercial terms. On 11-10-2021, the BGS hospital communicates
to the appropriate authority requesting inclusion of Dr. Mahesh
Gopasetty’s name in the BGS certificate of registration as a liver
transplant surgeon. This is accepted by the appropriate authority
on 21-10-2021.
5.3. The entire fulcrum of the lis revolves round the period
between 24-02-2022 and 1-03-2022. This is the period in which
liver transplant surgeries were conducted in respect of three
patients. The surgeries were performed by Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty
under emergent circumstances. By then Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty was
also authorized to perform liver transplant surgeries. On
11-03-2022 a legal notice is caused by the
st st st
1 respondent/complainant to the 1 petitioner alleging that the 1
petitioner has failed to make payment of certain purported
contractual dues under the aforesaid contract and that to be a
violation of the Act. On 18-03-2022, the appropriate authority
- 10 -
revises the certificate with names of doctors authorized to conduct
liver transplantation surgeries at the hospital including Dr. Mahesh
Gopasetty. Petitioners 1 and 3 issued a reply to the
complainant/respondent’s legal notice denying the allegations. The
st st
second contract then of the 1 respondent with the 1 petitioner
st
was terminated. The 1 respondent was given full and final
st
settlement of certain amounts by the 1 petitioner-M/s Gleneagles
Healthcare India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Company’ for short). However, the complainant seeks to get a
complaint registered before the Kengeri Police Station on the
ground that the petitioners were involved in the offences under the
Act. The Police refused to register the complaint stating that the
offences under the Act can be investigated only by the appropriate
authority under the Act.
5.4. On refusal to register the complaint, the complainant
invokes the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 200
of the CrPC alleging violation of the provisions of the Act. The
learned Magistrate registers P.C.R.No.5672 of 2023 and seeks to
continue the proceedings. The appropriate authority to whom the
- 11 -
notice was also issued, submits a report before the Court containing
the opinion and detailed consideration holding that there is no
violation of either Section 18 or Section 20 of the Act by any of the
accused. The Court then takes cognizance of the offence under
Sections 18 and 20 of the Act and registers as C.C.No.33487 of
2025 in terms of its order dated 29-08-2025. It is the registration
of criminal case and issuance of summons that is called in question
by the petitioners before this Court.
6. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for
all the accused would vehemently contend that none of the
ingredients of the Act are even made out in the cases at hand. If it
were to be an unauthorized surgery, it would have been an
altogether different circumstance. The learned senior counsel
submits that the Act relates to punishment for removable of a
human organ without authority under Section 18, while Section 20
sets out punishment for contravention of any other provision of the
rd
Act. The complainant alleges that Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty, 3
petitioner in the companion petition, did not possess the authority
to conduct transplant surgery. The learned senior counsel submits
- 12 -
that Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty conducted second surgeries only after
the doctors were duly authorized by the appropriate authority to
conduct those surgeries. The learned senior counsel submits that
the complainant was not available at that point in time and surgery
had become imminent. Therefore, the surgery has taken place. No
patient has complained and no other doctor has complained, but it
is the complainant to settle scores with the hospital has brought up
this as a complaint. The learned senior counsel would submit that
there is no violation of the statute and would seek to place reliance
on the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in AJAY
TEJRAJ OSWAL (DR.) v. JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
1
SERVICES , which the learned senior counsel submits was
rendered under similar circumstances. He would also submit that
the order taking cognizance is bereft of material qua the offences
under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act.
st
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1
respondent/complainant Sri Nischal Dev B. R. would vehemently
refute the submissions in contending that the offence was
1
2011 SCC OnLine Bom 941
- 13 -
undoubtedly made at the time when the crime had been registered.
But, today the doctors have entered into a compromise and seek
closure of the proceedings pursuant to the said compromise. The
parties to the lis have filed a joint affidavit to that effect. Since it is
the allegations under the provisions of the Act, this Court thought it
fit not to close the proceedings by acceptance of the compromise,
but to answer it on its merit, albeit on the periphery.
8. The allegations are the ones punishable under Sections 18
and 20 of the Act. They read as follows:
“ 18. Punishment for removal of human organ
without authority .—(1) Any person who renders his services
to or at any hospital and who, for purposes of transplantation,
conducts, associates with, or helps in any manner in, the
removal of any human organ without authority, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years and with fine which may extend to twenty lakh
rupees.
(2) Where any person convicted under sub-section (1) is
a registered medical practitioner, his name shall be reported by
the Appropriate Authority to the respective State Medical
Council for taking necessary action including the removal of his
name from the register of the Council for a period of three years
for the first offence and permanently for the subsequent
offence.
(3) Any person who renders his services to or at any
hospital and who conducts, or associates with or helps in any
manner in the removal of human tissues without authority, shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
- 14 -
to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees.
… … …
20. Punishment for contravention of any other
provision of this Act .—Whoever contravenes any provision of
this Act or any rule made, or any condition of the registration
granted, thereunder for which no punishment is separately
provided in this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to five years or with fine which may
extend to twenty lakh rupees.”
Section 18 deals with punishment to an accused doctor who would
indulge in removal of human organ without authority and Section
20 sets out punishment for any other act. Whether Dr. Mahesh
Gopasetty who performed the surgery under emergent
circumstances, in the absence of the complainant, had the authority
or not is required to be noticed, as the entire fulcrum of the
complaint revolves round the doctor not having authority.
Therefore, it is necessary to notice the valid authority of Dr. Mahesh
Gopasetty who performed the surgery.
9. It is not in dispute that the hospital is registered under the
Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act and the Rules. The
initial renewal of certificate of registration happens on 01-10-2018
with the following doctors:
- 15 -
…. …. ….
“ ANNEXURE WHICH MENTIONS THE TEAM OF DOCTORS
RECOGNISED FOR CONDUCTING LIVER TRANSPLANT AT
BGS GLOBAL HOSPITAL DURING THE CONCERNED
PERIOD IS MENTIONED AS Reference No. - 7
Which mentions Liver Transplantation Surgical team as
1. Dr. Sunil Shenvi
2. Dr Kota Venugopal
3. Dr. Venu Gopal B
Issued by Appropriate Authority.”
- 16 -
The second renewal happens on 19-09-2019 with the following
doctors:
On 20-11-2018 Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty was given authorization for
performing liver transplantation through the certificate of
registration of Fortis hospital. It reads as follows:
- 17 -
Therefore, Dr. Mahesh Gopasetty and his team were authorized
doctors to conduct or perform liver transplantation. Now it becomes
apposite to refer to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in
identical circumstance. The Bombay High Court considers the
spectrum of the Act in AJAY TEJRAJ OSWAL (DR.) supra and holds
as follows:
“…. …. ….
- 18 -
5. In order to answer this, one must peruse the above
mentioned Act and the Rules made thereunder. The relevant
provisions of the Act are mentioned below.
Section 2. Definitions : In this Act unless the
context otherwise requires:
(b) “Appropriate Authority” means the Appropriate
Authority appointed under section 13;
(g) “hospital” includes a nursing home, clinic,
medical centre, medical or teaching institution for
therapeutic purposes and other like institution;
(n) “registered medical practitioner” means a medical
practitioner who possesses any recognized
medical qualification as defined in clause (h) of
section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956,
and who is enrolled on a State Medical Register
as defined in clause (k) of that section;
S. 10. Regulation of hospitals conducting the
removal, storage or transplantation of human organs :
(1). On and from the commencement of this Act:
(a) no hospital, unless registered under this Act,
shall conduct, or associate with, or help in, the
removal, storage or transplantation of any
human organ;
(b) no medical practitioner or any other person shall
conduct, or cause to be conducted, or aid in
conducting by himself or through any other
person, any activity relating to the removal,
storage or transplantation of any human organ at
a place other than any place registered under this
Act; and
(c) no place including a hospital registered under
sub-section (1) of section 15 shall be used or
cause to be used by any person for the removal,
storage or transplantation of any human organ
except for therapeutic purposes.
(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), the eyes or the ears may be removed at any
- 19 -
place from the dead body of any donor, for therapeutic
purposes, by a registered medical practitioner.
Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section,
“ears” includes ear drums and ear bones.
S. 13. Appropriate Authority :— (1). The Central
Government shall appoint, by notification, one or more
officers as Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union
territories for the purposes of this Act.
(2). The State Government shall appoint, by
notification, one or more officers as Appropriate
Authorities for the purposes of this Act.
(3). The Appropriate Authority shall perform the
following functions, namely:
(i) to grant registration under sub-section (1) of
section 15 or renew registration under sub-
section (3) of that section;
(ii) to suspend or cancel registration under sub-
section (2) of section 16;
(iii) to enforce such standards as may be prescribed,
for hospitals engaged in the removal, storage or
transplantation of any human organ;
(iv) to investigate any complaint of breach of any of
the provisions of this Act or any of the rules
made thereunder and take appropriate action;
(v) to inspect hospitals periodically for examination
of the quality of transplantation and the follow-up
medical care to persons who have undergone
transplantation and persons from whom organs
are removed; and
(vi) to undertake such other measures as may be
prescribed.
S. 14. Registration of hospital engaged in
removal, storage or transplantation of human organs :—
(1). No hospital shall commence any activity relating to
the removal, storage or transplantation of any human
organ for therapeutic purposes after the commencement
of this act unless such hospital is duly registered under
this Act.
- 20 -
Provided that every hospital engaged, either
partly or exclusively in any activity relating to the
removal, storage or transplantation of any human organ
for therapeutic purposes immediately before the
commencement of this Act, shall apply for registration
within sixty days from the date of such commencement:
Provided further that every hospital engaged in
any activity relating to the removal, storage or
transplantation of any human organ shall cease to
engage in any such activity on the expiry of three
months from the date of commencement of this Act
unless such hospital has applied for registration and is
so registered or till such application is disposed of,
whichever is earlier.
(2). Every application for registration under sub-
section (1) shall be made to the Appropriate Authority in
such form and in such manner and shall be accompanied
by such fees as may be prescribed.
(3). No hospital shall be registered under this Act
unless the Appropriate authority is satisfied that such
hospital is in a position to provide such specialised
services and facilities, possess such skilled manpower
and equipments and maintain such standards as may be
prescribed.
S. 24. Power to make rules :— (1). The Central
Government may, by notification, make rules for
carrying out the purposes of this Act.
6. Utilising powers to make rules, Central Government
has enacted rules under the Act by name Transplantation of
Human Organs Rules, 1995 out of which, following rules are
relevant for our discussion.
Rule 2. Definitions
2. (e) the Registered medical Practitioner, as defined in
clause (n) of section 2 of Transplantation of Human Organs Act,
1994 includes an allopathic doctor with MBBS or equivalent
degree under the Medical Council of India Act.
Rule: 7. Registration of hospital
- 21 -
1. An application for registration shall be made to the
Appropriate Authority as specified in Form 11. The application
shall be accompanied by a fee or rupees one thousand payable
to the Appropriate Authority by means of a bank draft or postal
order.
2. The Appropriate Authority shall, after holding an
inquiry and after satisfying itself that the applicant has
complied with all the requirements, grant a certificate of
registration as specified in Form 12 and shall be valid for a
period of five years form the date of its issue and shall be
renewable.
3. Before a hospital is registered under the provisions of
this rule, it shall be mandatory for the hospital to nominate a
transplant coordinator.
Rule 9. Conditions for grant of certificate of registration:
No hospital shall be granted a certificate of registration under
this Act unless it fulfills the following requirement of manpower,
equipment, specialized services and facilities as laid down
below:—
A. General Manpower Requirement Specialised Services and
Facilities :
1. 24 hours availability of medical and surgical, (senior and
junior) staff.
2. 24 hours availability of nursing staff, (general and
speciality trained).
3. 24 hours availability of Intensive Care Units with
adequate equipments, staff and support system,
including specialists in anaesthesiology, intensive care.
4. 24 hours availability of laboratory with multiple
discipline testing facilities including but not limited to
Microbiology, Bio-Chemistry, Pathology and Hematology
and Radiology departments with trained staff.
5. 24 hours availability of Operation Theatre facilities (OT
facilities) for planned and emergency procedures with
adequate staff, support system and equipments.
6. 24 hours availability of communication system, with
power backup, including but not limited to multiple line
- 22 -
telephones, public telephone system, fax, computers
and paper photo-imaging machine.
7. Experts, (other than the experts required for the
relevant transplantation) of relevant and associated
specialties including but not limited to and depending
upon the requirements, the experts in internal medicine,
diabetology, gastroenterology, nephrology, neurology,
paediatrics, gynaecology, immunology and cardiology
etc. should be available to the transplantation center.
B. Equipments :
Equipments as per current and expected scientific
requirements specific to organ or organs being transplanted.
The transplant center should ensure the availability of the
accessories, spare-parts and backup/maintenance/service
support system in relation to all relevant equipments.
C. Experts and their qualifications :
a. Kidney Transplantation M.S. (Gen.) Surgery or
equivalent qualification with three years post M.S.
training in a recognized center in India or abroad and
having attended to adequate number of renal
transplantation as an active member of team.
b. Transplantation of liver and other abdominal organs M.S.
(Gen.) Surgery or equivalent qualification with adequate
post M.S. training in an established center with a
reasonable experience of performing liver
transplantation as an active member of team.
c. Cardiac, Pulmonary, Cardio-Pulmonary Transplantation
M.Ch. Cardiothoracic and vascular surgery or equivalent
qualification in India or abroad with at least 3 years’
experience as an active member of the team performing
an adequate number of open-heart operations per year
and well-versed with Coronary by-pass surgery and
Heart-Valve surgery.
d. Cornea Transplantation M.D./M.S. ophthalmology or
equivalent qualification with one-year post M.D./M.S.
Training in a recoginsed hospital carrying out Corneal
transplant operations.
- 23 -
7. The provisions mentioned above clearly highlight
the importance of a properly equipped hospital for
undertaking surgical operations for transplantation of
human organs. An elaborate procedure is prescribed for
registration of a hospital. Unless such registration for a
hospital is secured a surgical operation of transplantation
of human organs there is not permissible. The Act and
the Rules however do not provide individual surgeons
who would undertake the surgical operations, are
required to be specifically authorized by the appropriate
authority.
8. Section 2(n) defines the term registered medical
practitioner and this term is further elaborated in Rule 2 (e).
This definition in fact does not show that the registered medical
practitioner should be a person who has acquired a specific
educational qualification, such as Master in Surgery or
specialization in Urology etc.
9. Rule 9 quoted above inter alia speaks about
“experts and their qualifications” who would be
employed by a registered hospital. So it is clear that at
the time of registration an applicant hospital should
provide the names and qualifications of the experts they
would engage for the transplantation operations in their
hospital. The appropriate authority's satisfaction for
grant of registration also depends on this vital
information.
10. The facts of this case suggest that the hospitals
which are named above had not mentioned the name of the
petitioner as one of the experts who would visit and perform
surgeries at their establishment. At times a hospital may not get
the services of any of their experts. All of them could be busy
somewhere else. At such time which could be a rare case and
that too of emergency could a registered hospital engage an
“expert” who is not on their list which they had furnished at the
time of registration without obtaining sanction of the
appropriate authority? The other relevant but similar question is
whether a registered hospital is allowed to change its team of
experts without appropriate sanction of the appropriate
authority? The answer to this question is in affirmative but
subject to some condition.
- 24 -
11. As said above, each hospital at the time of
registration is required to give a list of experts which
forms their team. The appropriate authority would then
examine as to whether the members of such team are
sufficiently qualified, as expected under Rule 9. Rule 9-C
clearly mentions that an expert would be a medical
practitioner having masters of kidney transplantation
(general) or equivalent qualification with three years-
post master of surgery training in a recognized center in
India or abroad and having attended to adequate number
of renal transplantation as an active member of team.
The appropriate authority thus would be able to examine
qualification of each expert whose name is mentioned in
the list, submitted by a hospital for registration. As said
above, the petitioner's name was not submitted as an
expert attached to the hospitals in question. However, it
has come on record that the petitioner's name is already
accepted as an expert of a registered hospital by name
Kamal Nayan Bajaj hospital Aurangabad. A letter to that
effect was issued in favour of the petitioner by
appropriate authority on 2-7-1999 and is annexed to this
petition Exhibit ‘B’. The position that emerges from this
fact is that if an expert in this field as defined under rule
9-C is recognized as member of team of experts in a
registered hospital, he would be able to perform surgical
operations involving transplantation of kidney in any
other registered hospital. The registered hospital has to
ascertain as to whether such expert is a member of a
team of experts in any other registered hospital. On
ascertainment of this information, a registered hospital is
able to permit such expert who is not member of their
own team to perform transplantation operations in their
hospital. The appropriate authority cannot raise any
objection to this practice. The rules referred to above do
not prohibit an expert who is member of a team of
experts of a registered hospital, from performing
transplantation operation in any other registered
hospital. At the same time in view of the rules referred to
above an expert who is not member of a team of any
registered hospital, no matter, how much experience he
has in this field, is not permitted to perform
transplantation operation in any registered hospital. In
view of this, the petition should succeed.
- 25 -
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The directions contained in the impugned order that the
petitioner shall not carry on transplantation operations in a
registered hospital is set aside.
The appropriate authority shall not prohibit the petitioner
from performing transplantation operation in any registered
hospital of his choice.
Petition allowed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Bombay High Court holds that in emergent circumstances if a
doctor who is permitted to perform liver transplantation by the
appropriate authority of any hospital can be permitted to perform
the said surgery on emergent circumstance in a hospital not
registered through the said hospital. In the case at hand, Dr.
Mahesh Gopasetty is registered through Fortis hospital at the hands
of the appropriate authority. In the light of the judgment of Bombay
High Court, to which I am in complete agreement, the contention
that the doctor was not authorised to perform surgery is
unacceptable. Therefore, on merit of the matter as well, the doctors
have not committed any offence under the Act for the concerned
Court to have taken cognizance.
- 26 -
10. Today the scenario is different. The complainant and the
petitioners have entered into a settlement by filing a joint affidavits.
The affidavit filed in W.P.No.31586 of 2025 reads as follows:
“ JOINT AFFIDAVIT
We, (1) Dr. Ashwini Amareshwar , authorised signatory of the
Petitioner No. 1, having their registered office at Plot No. 439,
Cheran Nagar, Perumbakkam, Chennai - 600 100,
Kancheepuram District, presently at Bengaluru; (2) Dr. AM
Kutappa , son of late Mr AT Muthanna, aged about 62 years,
residing at #135 Rainbow Residency, Junnasandra, off
Sarjapura Road, Bengaluru 560 035; (3) Dr. Ananth Rao , son
of late Mr D Nanjunda Rao, aged about 52 years, residing at
th
#15, Ugadi Road, 7 Cross, Akshayanagar, Bengaluru 560 068;
and (4) Mr. Biju Nair , son of Mr. Soman Nair, aged about 50
years, residing at LH8, 602, Lanco Hills Apartment, Manikonda,
Hyderabad 500 089, currently at Bengaluru, do hereby jointly
and solemnly affirm and declare on oath as follows:
1. The Deponents state that they are the Petitioners in the
Writ Petition and are fully acquainted with the facts of the
Case. They are competent to swear to this joint affidavit.
2. The Deponents state that the captioned Writ Petition is
filed by the Petitioners challenging, the order dated
29.08.2025 passed by the Hon'ble VI Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, in PCR No. 5672/2023
(subsequently converted to CC No. 33487/2025),
whereby cognizance was taken for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.
3. The Deponents state the Respondent was employed at the
Petitioner No. 1's Hospital. Owing to disputes that arose
between the parties in relation to their contractual
obligations, the Respondent and the Petitioners have
become parties to various legal proceedings.
- 27 -
4. The Petitioners and the Respondent have agreed to
resolve and settle the disputes amicably between them.
Accordingly, they have arrived into a memorandum of
settlement.
5. The Deponents state that the said settlement has been
arrived at after due consideration and deliberations
between the parties and upon obtaining necessary advice,
with the mutual intention of amicably resolving all
disputes between them. The parties are guided by the
advice of the Appropriate Authority, as constituted under
Section 13 of the THOT Act, and being fully satisfied that
the settlement is bona fide.
6. The Deponents state that in view of the said settlement,
the Petitioners and the Respondent have agreed to close
or cause to close all legal proceedings respectively
instituted by them.
7. The Deponents state that the Petitioners have entered
into the Compromise Petition voluntarily, of their own free
will and with mutual consent, and without any coercion,
pressure, undue influence.
8. The Deponents state that the Respondent has no
objection to the quashing of the PCR No. 5672/2023,
subsequently converted to CC No. 33487/2025 or any
proceedings arising therefrom.
9. The Deponents state that the Parties hereby agree and
undertake that they shall not initiate, institute, pursue or
maintain any suit, petition, complaint or other
proceedings before any Court, Tribunal, Authority or
Forum against each other in respect of the subject matter
of the present dispute in future.
10. That all that is stated hereinabove are true and correct to
the best of our knowledge, information and belief.”
- 28 -
On the strength of the joint affidavit, compromise petition is filed
seeking compounding of the offence. It reads as follows:
“MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,
2023
The Petitioners and the Respondent most respectfully submit as
under:
1. The captioned proceedings was filed by the Petitioners
challenging
a. Order dated 29.08.2025 (" Cognizance Order ") passed
by the Hon'ble VI Addl. CJM, Bangalore (" Ld.
Magistrate "), in PCR No. 5672/2023 (subsequently
converted to CC No. 33487/2025), whereunder, the Ld.
Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of the
Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994
(" THOT Act ") and issued summons to all the accused
therein, including the Petitioners before this Hon'ble
Court;
b. Private complaint in PCR No. 5672/2023 (subsequently
converted to CC No. 33487/2025) filed by the Respondent
before the Ld. Magistrate for alleged offences punishable
under Sections 18 and 20 of the THOT Act (" Impugned
Complaint ");
c. Entire proceedings in CC No. 33487/2025, arising out of
PCR No. 5672/2023, pending on the files of the Ld.
Magistrate (" Impugned Proceedings ").
2. The Respondent was employed at the Petitioner's
Hospital. Owing to disputes that arose between the
parties in relation to their contractual obligations, the
Respondent and the Petitioners have become parties to
various legal proceedings.
- 29 -
3. In continuation of the contractual disputes between the
parties, the Respondent alleged that certain liver
transplantation surgeries undertaken by various doctors
at the hospital run by the Petitioner No. 1 were in alleged
violation of Section 18 and 20 of the THOT Act. In this
regard, the Impugned Complaint came to be filed by the
Respondent.
4. The Petitioners and the Respondent have agreed to
resolve and settle the disputes amicably between them.
Accordingly, they have arrived at a mutually agreeable
memorandum of settlement. The said settlement has
been arrived at after due consideration and deliberations
between the parties and upon obtaining necessary advice,
with the mutual intention of amicably resolving all
disputes between them. The Parties are guided by the
advice of the Ld. Appropriate Authority, as constituted
under Section 13 of the THOT Act, and being fully
satisfied that the settlement is bona fide.
5. In that light, the Respondent has agreed and affirmed
that he would not prosecute the Impugned Complaint and
requests this Hon'ble Court to allow the present Writ
Petition and consequently quash the Cognizance Order,
the Impugned Complaint, and the Impugned Proceedings.
The Petitioners and Respondent have agreed to close or
cause to close all legal proceedings respectively instituted
by them.
6. The Parties hereby agree and undertake that they shall
not initiate, institute, pursue or maintain any suit,
petition, complaint or other proceedings before any Court,
Tribunal, Authority or Forum against each other in respect
of the subject matter of the present dispute in future.
7. The Parties have entered into the present Compromise
Petition voluntarily, of their own free will and with mutual
consent, and without any coercion, pressure, undue
influence.
8. Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to permit the parties to compromise and
allow the Writ Petition and consequently quash the
- 30 -
Cognizance Order, the Impugned Complaint, and the
Impugned Proceedings.”
In the light of the offence itself not being made out and apart from
the two, the complainant and the accused, entering into a
settlement, there is no warrant for continuation of proceedings
before the concerned Court.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed .
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.33487 of 2025 pending before
the VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru
including taking of cognizance stand quashed.
Pending applications if any, also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp