PIL with assumptions, presumptions cannot be entertained: HC

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: Dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) the High Court of Karnataka said such litigations “which have been filed only on assumptions and presumptions cannot be entertained by this Court.”

The PIL was filed challenging the Certificate of Registration granted to Arogya Diagnostics Ultrasound Clinic in Chamarajangara.

It was claimed that the Clinic was 45.14 meters from the Government Hospital and, as per rules, had to be situated beyond 300 meters.

Therefore the Certificate issued for five years from 2022 to 2027 should be cancelled. The bench of Chief Justice Prasanna Varale and Justice MGS Kamal in their recent judgement said this PIL could not be entertained.

“Though at first blush, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners look very attractive, but after going through the material placed on record and the provisions of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (for short 'the said Act'), we are of the clear opinion that this public interest litigation cannot be entertained.”

The Court said that it was for the Registration Authority to consider if there was violation of rules.

“There is not a single word in the writ petition with regard to any deviation from the safeguards or any breach of the prerequisites which are referred to above. It may not be out of place to state that the Registration Authority possesses the power to suspend or cancel the registration on a complaint or on its own, if it is satisfied that there is contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder,” the HC said.

The HC also noted that the petitioners; Rajesh, Kiran and Prakash had submitted a report from a private consultant issued to a third party who was not part of this case.

“It is also interesting to note that the petitioners have engaged the services of a private Consultant. The private Consultant submitted a report which is placed on record. A perusal shows that the report is issued to one Smt. Shashikala Ramesh. Admittedly, Smt. Shashikala Ramesh is not a petitioner before this Court,” the HC said.

Dismissing the petition, the HC said, “Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the present public interest litigation which has been filed only on assumptions and presumptions cannot be entertained by this Court.” (WP 8991/2023)