VAIDYA NIMAI BISWAS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.23582 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
VAIDYA NIMAI BISWAS
S/O. MANIKCHANDRA BISWAS
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
VAMSHA PARAMPARIKA AYURVEDA
PRATHAMA CHIKISTHA KENDRA,
ND
NEHARU NAGAR, 2 CROSS,
BEERURU, KADURU TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALURU – 575 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE (V/C))
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND CHAIRMAN OF REGISTRATION COMMITTEE
FOR KARNATAKA PRIVATE
MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT
CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 575 101.
3. THE DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER,
CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 575 101.
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
4. THE DISTRICT SECRETARY
DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER,
CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 575 101.
5. THE TALUK HEALTH OFFICER,
KADURU TALUK,
CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 575 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE
RD
ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 3 RESPONDENT IN
NO.JIAAKUKA.KE.PI.M.E/ETHARE/2025-26 DATED 04.07.2025 NON
ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER THE
PROVISION OF KPME ACT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-S
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has approached this Court impugning the
endorsement dated 04.07.2025 [ the impugned order ] issued by
respondent No.3-the District Health and Family Welfare Officer [ the
DHO ], whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section
3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 [the
Act] , came to be rejected .
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
Brief facts
2. The petitioner completed his education up to PUC in 1999.
His forefathers were Ayurveda practitioners and he also provides
first aid by Ayurvedic methods. The Act was published in the
Karnataka Gazette on 23.01.2008. Section 3 of the Act requires
registration of private medical establishments and allows an
establishment already in existence to keep running until its
application is disposed of. The Karnataka Private Medical
Establishments Rules, 2009 [ the Rules ] was published on
08.01.2009, followed by Notification No.HRW 94 CGE 2008 on
15.09.2009. Rule 3(5) of the Rules lists "Alternative Medicine
Centers" as a category.
3. The petitioner further submits that in 2017, respondent No.1-
State issued a Notification dated 05.04.2017, entitle to continue
Paramparika Ayurveda Chikistha and also those who are
continuously doing their Chikistha entitle to encourage two seats
were reserved for studying Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and
Surgery [ the BAMS ] course.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
4. On 12.05.2020, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
[ the KSPCB ] permitted the petitioner to run a clinic. On
01.07.2023, he signed a Memorandum of Understanding [ MOU ]
with Prajwal BMW Management System for collection of bio-
medical waste, and that authorization was renewed on 05.06.2024.
In the interregnum, on 17.05.2024, the Health and Family Welfare
Department issued an Official Memorandum stating that persons
registered under the Ayurveda and Unani Act are entitled to
register under the Act.
5. On 01.06.2025, the Association issued Registration
Certificate No.052 to the petitioner, recording about ten years of
practice in the Ayurvedic system and permitting him to join the
BAMS course. On 02.06.2025, respondent No.3 issued a letter
clarifying practice in Electro Homeopathy. On 13.06.2025, the
Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued a letter on the
same subject.
6. On 23.06.2025, the petitioner filed his application in Form-A
along with the fee, for registration of the Vamsha Paramparika
Ayurveda Prathama Chikistha Kendra at Neharu Nagar, Biruru,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
Kaduru Taluk, Chikkamagaluru. On 28.06.2025, the petitioner sent
representations to respondent Nos.3 and 5, with copies served on
respondent Nos.1 and 2, seeking that his application be placed
before the Committee.
7. On 04.07.2025, respondent No.3 issued an endorsement
stating that the application would not be registered and that no
guidelines existed to accept it. Aggrieved by the endorsement, the
petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Contentions
8. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the rejection of the application by respondent No.3
is contrary to the provisions of Sections 4 and 7 of the Act. It is his
submission that the Act provides for a Registration Authority
comprising of Deputy Commissioner of the District as Chairman,
the DHO as a member secretary, President/Secretary, Indian
Medical Association of the concerned District as member, District
AYUSH officer as a member and President/Secretary, and the
AYUSH Federation of India of the concerned district as member,
who have in regard to the provisions of the Act can either grant
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
registration subject to such condition as may be prescribed or
reject the application.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the
impugned order has been passed by the DHO, who is only a
member of the Registration Authority, and not by the Registration
Authority constituted under the Act.
Reasons and conclusion
10. The Act was enacted on 2007 and the person who is a
private practitioner has to register his name under Section 3 of the
Act. Section 3 of the Act reads as under:
“ 3. Registration of Private Medical
Establishments.– On and after the appointed day, no
Private Medical Establishment shall be established, run or
maintained in the State except under and in accordance
with the terms and conditions of registration granted under
this Act:
Provided that a Private Medical Establishment in
existence immediately prior to the appointed day shall apply
for such registration within six months from the date of
commencement of the Karnataka Private Medical
Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2012 and pending orders
thereon may continue to run or maintain till the disposal of
the application. ”
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
11. Section 5 provides for submitting of an application for
registration, which reads as under:
“ 5. Application for Registration.– Every person
desiring to establish, run, maintain or continue to run and
maintain a Private Medical Establishment shall make an
application to the concerned Registration Authority in such
form, in such manner and along with such fees as may be
prescribed and different amount of fees may be prescribed,
for different class or classes of Private Medical
Establishments. ”
12. There is an Registration Authority, which is provided under
Section 4 of the Act, which reads as under:
“ 4. Registration Authority– There shall be a
Registration Authority in each district consisting of the
following members, namely.–
(a) The Deputy Commissioner of
the district Chairman
(b) District Health and Family
Welfare Officer Member-Secretary
(c) President/Secretary, Indian
Medical Association of the
concerned district Member
(d) District AYUSH officer Member
(e) President/Secretary, the
AYUSH Federation of India of
the concerned district Member”
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
13. On submission of the application by persons, the application
has to be disposed of by the Registration Authority.
14. Section 7 provides for the same, which reads as under:
“ 7. Disposal of applications.– (1) On receipt of
an application under section 5, the Registration Authority
may having regard to the provisions of section 6 and after
such enquiry as may be necessary, by Local Inspection
Committee, either grant registration subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed or reject the application:
Provided that the Registration Authority shall not
reject the application without giving an opportunity of being
heard to the applicant and without recording the reasons for
such rejection.
(2) Every order passed under sub-section (1)
shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.
(3) Every registration granted under sub-section
(1) shall be valid for a period of five years and may be
renewed once in five years on an application made in such
form, in such manner and on payment of such fees, as may
be prescribed.”
15. A plain reading of the said provision indicates that on receipt
of an application under Section 5, the Registration Authority having
regard to the provisions of Section 6 and after such enquiry as may
be necessary by the Local Inspection Committee, either grant
registration, subject to such condition as may be prescribed or
reject the application.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
16. Admittedly, in the present case, the application has been
rejected by the DHO and not by the Registration Authority. It is
settled law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed
under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu Verghese and Others
1
v. Bar Council of Kerala and Others has observed at paragraph
Nos.31 and 32 as under:
“31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the
manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any
statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The
origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v.
Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426 : 45 LJCh 373] which was
followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor
[(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] who stated as under:
“[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing
in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way
or not at all.”
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao
Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 :
1954 SCR 1098] and again in Deep Chand v. State of
Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 1527 : (1962) 1 SCR 662] . These
cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court
in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964)
1 SCWR 57] and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case
[(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] was again upheld.
This rule has since been applied to the exercise of
jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a
salutary principle of administrative law.”
1
(1999) 3 SCC 422
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59022
WP No. 23582 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010510002025
18. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. Accordingly,
this Court pass the following:
ORDER
allowed.
i. The writ petition
ii. The endorsement dated 04.07.2025 issued by
respondent No.3-the District Health and Family Welfare
set aside.
Officer is
iii. The petitioner’s application to be considered by the
Registration Authority and the same shall be disposed
as per Section 7 of the Act within a period of eight
weeks from date.
Sd/-
_____________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
AT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18