BAMS practitioner fined Rs 2 lakh for insisting to be allowed ultrasounds under PC-PNDT Act

Consequent to the decision, the practitioner did not challenge the decision in a higher court but approached the department of AYUSH with his plea. When the department of AYUSH did not respond to his insistence, the practitioner again went to the high court raising the same plea that the BAMS Doctors be also included in the definition of Section 2(m) of the Act.

Responding to the writ the counsel for the Govt Of India submitted that the petitioner is misusing the process of law as he is filing the same petitions time and again. They have submitted that the cause of action in the present petition is the same because the petitioner has obtained the
degree of BAMS under the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 whereas the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6139 of 2011 has specifically held that “in a way seeks a mandamus to re-write the said definition so as to include “medical practitioners” recognized/registered under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 also

After going through the arguments, the single bench observed that the petitioner was trying to misuse the process of law and fined him Rs 2 lakh  as exemplary costs.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after examining the record, am of the considered opinion that this petition is totally unwarranted as the petitioner had already lost his case before this Court when he had filed the CWP No.6139 of 2011 and is still filing one writ petition after the other, misuing the process of law. Thus in such circumstances, this petition is dismissed and for misusing the process of law, exemplary costs is imposed upon him of `2 lakhs which shall be paid by him by depositing in the Registry of this Court within a period of one month. In case the cost is not paid, the High Court shall take appropriate action against the petitioner by moving an application for contempt in the present petition as the direction is issued to the petitioner to pay cost.

Attached is the judgement below