The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI SAMA SANDEEP SC FOR TSMC The Court made the following: ORDER , REDbY Lt ';,&:#. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT PETITION No. 24286 OF 2O2S ORDER: Petitioner stated that hospital is a registered allopathic private medical care establishment, established in the year 2019, and operating continuously under a valid certilicate of Registration issued by the 2nd respondefit under the provisions of the Telangana Allopathic Private Medical care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2OO2, which remains in force until 18.11.2029. They employ qualified and registered medical practitioners, providing essential healthcare services to. poor and needy at affordable costs. The hospital also employs several non-medical staff such as nurses, ward assistants and administrative personnel whose livelihood depends on the continued functioning of the hospital.r

1.1. It is stated, on O5.O7.2O25, Respondent No. 3 - Telangana Medical council conducted inspection of the hospital in a hasty and irregular manner which resulted in registering FIR No. 4Ol of 2025 on 23.07.2025 against Mr. Kommu Venkateshan, alleging unauthorized practice of allopathic medicine. The delay between the date of inspection and ') registration of FIR casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations; the inspection report did not specify any violations, deficiencies or deviations from medical standards, and no findings were ever communicated in writing to petitioner hospital.

1.2. Petitioner further stated that as per law, every inspection must be reduced into writing and a copy be furnished to the establishment concerned to enable it. to submit an explanation in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In this case, no such report or opportunily was given to petitioner, hence, failure to furnish the report or seek an explanation before taking drastic action constitutes gross violation of the principles of natural justice and renders the process arbitrary and mechanical.

1.3. According to petitioner, the inspection ctinducted by Respondent No. 3 did not identify any patient allegedty being treated by an unauthorized person. The impugned seizure notice fails to mention any patient name, treatment details or evidence of administration of medicines by an unqualified individual. This shows that inspection was carried out with a premeditated intention to close down the hospital rather than to tI I i J 'a ensure compliance with standards. Petitioner contended that respondents'action has caused immense damage to hospital's reputation, leading to loss of goodwill and trust among patients and the local community. L.4. Petitioner stated that on O4.O8.2O25, respondent authorities entered the hospital premises and seized the same without issuing prior notice or affording an ofportunity to explain and not furnishing the inspection report is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. They furnished a copy of seizure notice dated 29.O7.2025, wherein it was alleged that Mr. Kommu Venkateshan S/o Bajaiah, purportedly a Bachelor of A5rurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) graduate without an MBBS degree, was running the hospital. It is clarified that the allegation is false as the hospital is being lawfutly managed by Dr. D. Koushal along with other'qualified doctors, namely Dr. Gopi A, Dr. Arvind Reddy, Dr. Bhavya Reddy Adla, and Dr. Shravan. Mr. Kommu Venkateshan is not a BAMS graduate but a duly-trained Multipurpose Health Assistant (MPHA), whose duties are limited to assisting doctors, taking vitals, maintaining records and providing first aid. Seizure based on such false assumption is arbitrary, high= 4 handed and mala fide, intended to disrupt the operations of a hospital known for its large patient inflow and gooclwill among the public.

1.5. It is contended, had the authorities issued a notice before taking such action, petitioner would have submitted a detailed explanation clarifying the position and produced documents establishing the staff"s qualifications. [t was also submitted that the impugned Seizure Notice refers to the Telangana Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2OO2, Section 22 oftthe Telangana General Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, Sections 34 and 54 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2OL9 and Sections 4, 7(1), and 13 of the Clinical Esrablishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2OLO and none of these provisions confer any power upon the respor,d..,r3 to seize or seal a hospital, hence the entire action is without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

1.6. Petitioner stated that hospital was alruptly seized, as a result, hospital has been completely shut dovr.n, depriving poor and needy patients of essential medical care, especially during the monsoon season when health issues increase. Due to 5 this illegal seizure, the hospital suffered irreparable loss of reputation and income, employees lost their livelihood and the public has been denied critical healthcare services.

2. The 2"d respondent - District Registration Authority and District Medical & Health Officer filed the coutner stating that Telangana Medical Council conducted a surprise inspection of petitioner Hospital; as per the records, the said hospital was registered in the name of Sri Ch. Srinivas Rao as Managing Director and Dr. Deva Koushal, M.D. (General Medicine), as Medical Director, under Certilicate of Registration No.545(MDCL), issued by this office on 19.11.2019, valid from

19.11.2024 till 18.11.2029. However, during verification, it was found that Dr. Deva Koushal is currently pursuing his D.M. in Cardiologr at Narayana Hrudayalaya, and was therefore, not present or available at the said hospital during the *rspection. Inspection was carried out by Dr. G. Srinivas, Vice-Chairman, Telangana State Medical Council and Dr. Kun Vishnu, M.B.B.S. (Paediatrics), Member of the Telangana State Medical Council. During the inspection, it was observed that the hospital was being operated by Sri C.H. Srinivas Rao as Managing Director along with one Mr. Kommu Venkateshan, S/o Bajaiah, who 6 does not hold any recognized M.B.B.S. degree and has no valid allopathic qualification. It was found that the said individual was caught in the act of treating patients, prescribing allopathic {.,.gs, and practicing modern medicine without registration or I authorization, thereby indulging in illegal medical practice. The inspection team concluded that hospital was being run unauthorisedly in violation of the provisions governing medical establishments and practitioner registration.

2.1. [t is stated, based on the inspection findings, the Registrar, TelAngana State Medical Council lodged a formal complaint against Mr. Kommu Venkateshan Jeading to registration of F.l.R. No. 4Ol of 2025 dated 23.07.2025 by the Station House Officer, Suraram Police Station, for the offences under Sections 318(4) and 3L9(21 of the Bharal-iya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Section 22 read with Section ZlOlfll of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act (1'MPR) and Sections 34 read with 54 of the National Medical Commission o-Act (NMCA). Accordingly, criminal proceedings wL're initiated against the unqualified person found practicing modern medicine, and action was taken under the relevant lrrovisions of law. \ 7 n 2-2- The Registrar, Telangana State Medical council addressed a detailed letter to the chairman and District collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, who is also the head of the District clinical Registering Authority (D.R.A.) for Medical Establishments and Registration, highlighting the grave risk posed to public health and safet5r due to such unauthorized, and, unqualified medical practice. It was specilically'stated in the said communication that, as per the guidelines and regulations framed under the National Medical commission (NMC), only those individuals who are duly registered in the National Medical Register or the respective State Medical councils are legally authorized to practice modern scientilic medicine (Allopathy). The Registrar emphasized that any deviation from this legal mandate constitutes a serious threat to the lives of unsuspecting patients. .b

2.3- In view of the above facts and in consideration of the public health risk involved, the District Registering Authority was instructed to immediately seize and seal the said hospital premises in order to prevent further illegal and unauthorized medical practice. The action was taken strictly in the interest of public safety to curb the activities of unqualified 8 individuals practicing medicine without requisite qualifications or licenses. The measures undertaken were in full compliance with Rule B(2)(9) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, which mandates initiation of criminal proceedings zrgainst any unqualilied person or quack found practicing modern medicine. Pursuant to the said Rule and in accordance with Section 20 of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 (as amended by Act No.10 of 2013), and Sections 34 and 54 of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, appropriate proceedings were initiated. The seizure of the premises was part of a broader Anti-Quackery Initiative being implemented by the Government and the Telangana State Medical Council to identify and prevent illegal and unsafe medical practices by unqualified individuals.

2.4. Accordingty, the premises were seized in3accordance with the directions issued by the competent authorit5r. The action was taken in the larger public interest to safeguard health and safet5r and to prevent risks arising lrom such unauthorized medical treatment. As part of the said proceedings, petitioner was also directed to submit t.heir written explanation to the Seizure Notice within seven davs from the I 9 date of receipt of the same. However, petitioner failed to comply with the said direction within the stipulated time. Consequently, the District Registering Authority proceeded in accordance with law to seal the premises and to ensure that unauthorized medical practice was discontinued.

3. The 3'd respondent stated in the counter that that he is the competent authoritSr under law and is'empowered to exercise powers under Section 34 of the National Medical commission Act, 2019, sections 20 and 22 of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968, and Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (Compulsory Rural Medical Service and Compulsory Government Service Renewal of Registration, visiting or inspecting the Hospital or Nursing Home or Institution) Rules, 2013, issued uide G.O-Ms-No.129 dated 08.08.2013. In the lawful exercise of such p&vers, they conducted ". sudden and surprise inspection of petitioner hospital on 05.07.2025, during which, it was found that Mr. Kommu Venkateshan, who does not possess M.B.B.S' qualification was unauthorizedly and illegally practicing modern medicine and prescribing allopathic drugs to patients- It was observed that he was administering injections, IV fluids, and l0 - providing allopathic treatment without thr: necessary qualification, thereby posing a serious threat to public health and safety. It was further found that he u/as deceitfully impersonating himself as an M.B.B.S. qualified doctor to .mislead the general public and earn wrongful gain, which amounts to cheating under criminal law.

3.1. In accordance with Rule 8(9) of the aforesaid Rules, where unqr-ralified persons or quacks are found practicing modern systems of scientific medicine or prescribing allopathic drugs in any hospital or clinic, criminal proceedings are to be initiated by making a complaint to the Station House Officer concerned, as per Section 22 of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968. Following the: inspection, the committee prepared a detailed inspection report and submitted it to the Registrar of the Telangana Sr.ate Medical council for further action as per law. It was further stated that petitioner's contention that there was an une.xplained or unreasonable delay between the date of inspection and registration of FIR is wholly false and untenable. After every inspection, the Registrar of the Council is required to make an abstract of the information gathered, obtain necossary legal ,_ ,-I t ! advice, and secure the permission of the chairman before lodging a formal complaint with the concerned police authority. Hence, the short gap was due to mandatory procedural compliance and the delay, if any, cannot be characterized as unexplained or unreasonable. 3-2. It is also stated that inspection was conducted strictly as per the legal provisions and procedure established under the Acts and Rules governing medical practice. The allegation that the inspection report did not refer to any specific violation is false and baseless as the findings of the inspection were duly recorded and acted upon through proper regal channels. It was stated that original inspection report, along with supporting material and photographic evidence, was duly submitted to the competent police authoriqr at the time of lodging the complaint, which led to registration or $rn. The respondent emphasized that the petitioner,s claim of approaching the authorities and seeking a copy of the report is vague and self-serving. No proof or document has been filed by them to show that any such representation or request was ever made to the authorities concerned. Therefore, such a claim is false, baseless, and made only to mislead the Hon'ble court. _ . I I , I j ,t ; t2

4. Petitioner filed reply to the counter of Respondent No.2 stating that seizure report does not contain even a single finding arising from such inspection, nor does it record any specific or verifiable material against the hospital. Except making bald and unsubstantiated accusations, no material such as prescriptions, patient records, or documentary proof was seized by Respondent No. 2 to support the allegations that any unauthorized person was practicing medicine or prescribing drugs. It is emphasized that for any charge relating to illegal medical practice to stand, existence of prescriptions containing the names of drugs, dosage and the details of patient,s assessment are essential prerequisites. However, in this case, neither any prescription nor any patient was identified or shown to have been treated by the alleged individual, Mr:. Kommu Venkateshan. Therefore, the very foundation of fhe alleged offence under the relevant provisions of the Act is absent. No panchnama was prepared at the time of seizure, ,ut,hich is the standard legal procedure that authenticates the occurrence of events and ensures fairness in official actions. Absence of panchnama or any material record proves that seizure was not in accordance 'r'ith due process of law. The entire action, l3 therefore, stands as arbitrary, high-handed, and wholly unsupported by any prima facie material. 4-L- It is pointed out that even the seizure Notice itself directs submission of a report within seven days from the date of sealing the premises, which clearly shows that no opportunity of hearing or prior explanation was intended to be afforded to the Petitioner. Moreover, although the said seizure Notice bears the date 29.o2-2o2s, it was never served upon them on that date and was, in fact, handed over belatedly on o4.og.2o2s when the authorities arrived to seize the hospital premises. This demonstrates that the action was premeditated, unilaterar, and in complete disregard of natural justice. 5' Heard sri R. Anurag, rearned counsel for petitioner, Ms. sw'apna Madhuri, learned Assistant Government pleader for Medical, Health & Family welfare on behalf of Respoidents I and 2 and Sri sama Sandeep Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the 3'd respondent. 6' After perusing the material and considering the rival contentions, it is to be noted that Section 34 of the National Medical commission Act, 2org, sections 2o and 22 of the Telangana Medicar practitioners Registration Act, r96g and i I.l t4 Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council Rules, 2Ol3 expressly empower the authorities to inspect, investigate, and take necessary action against hospitals or institutions where .unqualified persons are found practicing modern medicine. At the time of inspection, as per the 2.d respondent, it is found that the pet.itioner clinic is registered in the name of Sri Ch. Srinivasa Rao as Managing Director Mr. Kommu "nd venkateshan who do not hold any recognized MBBS degree and has no allopathic qualification and Dr. Deva Koushal, MD (Gen. Medicine) as Medical Director as per certificate of Registration issued by the office 545 (MDCL) dated 19.1 1 .2ot9 valid from

19.11 .20241.i11 18.1L.2o19, but the Medical Director is pursuing his DM Cardiologr at Narayana Hrudayalaya. Therefore, the Registrar of the 3'd respondent had lodged FIR as there were unqualified doctors found practicing modern *Jdi.i.r.. The hospital was seized in the interest of public health to prevent risks arising from such unauthorised practice and petitioner was directed to submit reply to the seizure order rvithin seven days of its receipt. Further, the explanation offered by respondents regarding the interval between inspection and FIR registration appears reasonable, as due process required 15 preparation of a detailed report, regar scrutiny and formal complaint approval. Respondents have also produced the record to show that inspection findings were dury forwarded to the competent police authority, which resulted in registration of FIR No.40 | l2O2S dated 23.02 .2025. 7. Petitioner has not produced any cogent material to establish that inspection findings are false or fabricated. The plea that no inspection report was furnished remains unsupported by any evidence of written request or representation made by petitioner to the authorities. Likewise, petitioner's contention that hospital,s operations were seized without notice cannot be accepted, since Seizure Notice dated 29-07.2025 itself provided an opportunity to submit a written explanation within seven days. The fact that petitioner failed to utilize the said opportunitJr cannot be a ground to invitiaate the proceedings undertaken by the statutory authorities. 8. This court is therefore, of the considered view that respondents acted strictly within the framework of the statutory powers vested in them and the seizure was affected in the larger interest of protecting public health from unauthorized medical practice. The inspection and subsequent action were not -l i i I I I i I I ; I t6 r- arbitrary or without jurisdiction but were the rt:sult of due administrative and legal process under the relevant Acts and Rules. Petitioner's attempt to portray the entire exercise as a high-handed and mechanical act does not stand to reason in view of the specilic statutory mandate under Section 34 of the National. Meclical Commission Act, 2OL9, and the Anti-Quackery initiative.unclertaken by the Telangana State Meciical Council.

9. Having regard to serious nature of allegations, existence of FIR under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 22 read with Section 2O(II) of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 and Sections 34 and 54 of the National Medical Comrnission Act, 2019, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the lawful action of respondents. Petitioner has an adequatr: alternative remedy to defend himself and establish his versiotl before the appropriate authorities or in the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.4O1 of 2025 dated 23.07.2025. The Writ Petition therefore, does not merit consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed" The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No

10. costs. t7

11. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD STRAR DEPUW REGI SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, Advocate [OPUC] 2. one cc to sRl SAMA SANDEEP REDDY, SC FOR TSMC [OPUC] 3.TwoCCstoGPFoRMED|qALHEALTHFW,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT]

4. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP , HIGH COURT DATED: 1811112025 ORDER WP.No.24286 of 2025 \-. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION ;) ITHOUT COSTS IHE srA rG 0 L ( J