Swaran Singh vs Dr. Yashpal Mitra and Another

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner has filed this contempt petition complaining that respondent No. 2 Gurmit Singh Sodhi has been running a Clinic in the name and style of Sodhi Clinic at Village Kale Ghanupur, Chheharta, Amritsar despite the fact that a specific direction has been issued by a Division Bench of this court in public interest i.e. CWP No. 11054 of 2012 vide order dated 22.8.2012. The judgment passed reads as follows:-

This writ petition has been filed in public interest for issuance of directions to the officials respondents to take an appropriate action against respondent No. 5 Gurmit Singh Sodhi who is running a clinic unauthorizedly under the name & style of Sodhi Clinic at Village Kale Ghanupur Chheharta, Amritsar. It is grievance of the petitioner that to run the above said clinic, respondent No. 5 does not possess any valid licence or a requisite degree in the field of medicine.

Perusal of the documents indicates that for violating the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), an FIR was registered against respondent No. 5 on 19.7.2011. In that case, he has been enlarged on bail.

Mr. Navinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 states that after registration of the above FIR, respondent No. 5 is not running the clinic.

In view of the submissions made by counsel for respondent No. 5, this writ petition having become infructuous is disposed of. However, respondent No. 3 Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, is directed to verify as to whether respondent No. 5 is still running the clinic in question and in case he is found doing so, necessary action be taken against him forthwith.

Through the instant contempt petition, the petitioner has brought to the notice of this court that respondent No. 2 has made a wrong statement through his counsel that he is not running a clinic but at present the clinic is being run by him. A report was called from the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar. In the reply filed on behalf of the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, it has been informed that in compliance of the order dated 22.8.2012 an Inspection Team consisting of Ms. Anupama Kalia D.I., Asr-II, Sh. Sukhdeep Singh D.I. Asr-II, and Dr. Charanjit Singh District Epidemiologist, Amritsar was constituted on 11.9.2012 under the supervision of Dr. Charanjit Singh. Inspection report dated 11.9.2012 reflected that respondent No. 2 Gurmit Singh Sodhi (respondent No. 5 in the writ petition) was not practicing. On 7.2.2013 again, a team of Doctors had visited the clinic. Dr. Harpreet Singh was found present in the clinic and on inquiry it was found that he was a registered medical practitioner and that earlier the clinic was under the name and style of M/S Sodhi Polyclinic. Dr. Vivek Sharma was also practicing in the same clinic in the evening shift. Affidavits of Dr. Vivek Sharma and Dr. Harpreet Singh were obtained by the team. The verification was also done by the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar regarding respondent No. 2 being a practicing medical practitioner. The report, on the basis of two months surveillance, was submitted to the effect that the petitioner was no longer practicing there. On 8.2.2013 local councilor of the area had written to the Civil Surgeon that respondent No. 2 Gurmit Singh Sodhi was not longer doing any practice. The said fact was reaffirmed on 28.2.2013. On 4.3.2013 as well as on 14.3.2013 the inspection team conducted a surprise check. As per the final report and the photographs, it has been sought to be substantiated that respondent No. 2 was not running any laboratory or a polyclinic himself.

Counsel for the petitioner insists that respondent No. 2 Gurmit Singh Sodhi has camouflage the circumstances to mislead this court and to defeat the objective of the order passed by this court in the writ petition to restrain him from running a clinic. It has been further submitted that all efforts have been made to get this contempt petition dismissed in order to enable Gurmeet Singh Sodhi to commit the mischief again in violation of the undertaking given by him in CWP No. 11054 of 2012.

Taking into consideration all the above said factors, I am of the considered opinion that it is not feasible for this court to enter into the inquiry to determine the question of fact whether it is Gurmit Singh Sodhi, who is running a polyclinic and the laboratory despite an undertaking given in the court on 22.8.2012 that he is not running the clinic and getting the petition disposed of with a direction to the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar to verify the status of the clinic with a further direction that in case Gurmeet Singh is found doing so, necessary action will be taken against him forthwith but at the same time Gurmit Singh Sodhi cannot be permitted to violate the directions of this court and the Civil Surgeon cannot be asked time and again to submit the report. However, it is the duty of the Civil Surgeon to ensure that no such person like respondent No. 2 Gurmit Singh Sodhi is permitted to run unauthorised medical practice in the area under his jurisdiction. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that order dated 22.8.2012 will be deemed to be a decree for mandatory injunction against Gurmit Singh Sodhi on the basis of his statement that he is not running the clinic and at the same time it will be a direction to Civil Surgeon respondent No. 1 to ensure that Gurmit Singh Sodhi does not practice himself as a Physician as he does not hold a license or a degree for the same. The said decree will be executable as per the provisions of Section 2(2) CPC and an order, which would be executable u/s 36 and 38 as well as order XXI CPC. It will always be open to the petitioner to seek enforcement of the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in public interest by filing a petition for execution before the Civil Judge as and when there is any violation of the directions of this court. Disposed of. It is made clear that this order will not, in any manner, hamper the right of the petitioner to approach this court again for contempt in case of any violation of the order.