Dr Anand Mohan Thakur v. Uttarakhand Medical Council & Ors.

Presence:- Mr. Umakant Uniyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohit Puri and Mr. Yash Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Pallavi Pant, learned counsel holding brief of Ms. Devika Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 3. Mr. Pakaj Miglani, complainant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- for respondent no.2- learned counsel Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Ethics, Disciplinary and Registration Committee of the Uttarakhand State Medical Council, Dehradun (for short, “the Committee”) in Complaint No. 295/319 of 2025, Colonel Amit Kumar Deoli vs. Max Hospital & Others, whereby the Committee has passed an order against the petitioner, Dr. Anand Mohan Thakur, cancelling his registration to practice as a Medical Practitioner for a period of two months and suspending him from working as a doctor in any medical establishment for the said period. 1

A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondents that an appeal against the order passed by the Committee lies before the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (National Medical Commission), as provided under Section 30(3) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 (for short, “the Act, 2019”). In order to substantiate the said argument, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 30(3) of the Act, 2019, which is quoted hereinbelow:—

30. State Medical Councils.-(1)………………………. (2)………………………………………………………………. (3) A medical practitioner or professional who is aggrieved by any action taken by a State Medical Council under sub-section (2) may prefer an appeal to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board against such action, and the decision, if any, of the Ethics and Medical Registration Board thereupon shall be binding on the State Medical Council, unless a second appeal is preferred under sub-section (4).

As against this, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless, particularly when the impugned order suspends his practice for two months and cancels his registration for that period. He further submits that the Rules framed under the Uttarakhand Medical Council Act, 2002, namely the Uttaranchal Medical Council Rules, 2004, provide under Rule 7(2)(e) that the Disciplinary Committee could recommend State Medical Council to take action against the medical practitioner in view of the negligence found against him. However, in the present case, instead of making a recommendation to the State Medical Council, the Committee itself has cancelled the petitioner’s registration 2 for two months to practice and imposed a two months ban on his practising in any medical institution, by the impugned order.

It is also submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the Committee has acted beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the remedy lies in an appeal as provided under Section 30(3) of the Act, 2019 will not come in the way of the petitioner seeking justice before this Court.

This Court has considered the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, particularly the contention that the Committee has only recommendatory powers and does not have the authority to straightaway impose any penalty or punishment upon a medical practitioner. Rule 7(2)(e), referred to hereinabove, has been perused.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions referred to by both the parties, this Court is of the view that the contention raised by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner can very well be examined in an appeal preferred before the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (National Medical Commission). Only on account of the fact that there is a defect in the judgment and order, though glaring, this Court cannot bypass the statutory remedy available to the petitioner.

In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternate statutory remedy. The petitioner is at liberty 3 to avail the remedy as provided under Section 30(3) of the Act, 2019. It is, however, made clear that the arguments advanced by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner may also be raised before the appellate authority.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. AK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.02.2026 4