Kerala High Court
K.V.Mohammed Jamsheer vs S.H.O.Kannur Town Police Station on 13 February, 2025
WP(C) NO.190/2013 1
2025:KER:11812
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 190 OF 2013
CC NO.838 OF 2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -I, KANNUR
PETITIONER:
K.V.MOHAMMED JAMSHEER
S/O.C.V MOHAMMED SHERIF
AGED 29 YEARS, 'SUDHEEPAM'
NEAR CHOVVA BRIDGE, KANNUR 6
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR
SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION
KANNUR DISTRICT
ADDL.R2:
2 M.C.SHEREEF
S/O.P.K.C.KUNHABDULLA HAJI. B.M.C. VILLA,
BEECHARAKADAVU, PADNNA KADAPPURAM.P.O.,
HOSDURG, KASARGODE.
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.11.2023 IN
I.A.NO.13569/2013
BY ADV.BINOY DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.190/2013 2
2025:KER:11812
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025
Whether a criminal prosecution would lie against a
physiotherapist for putting forth to the public at large to be a ‘Doctor’
by using the prefix ‘Dr.’ to his name in the office stationary and in his
name boards is the short, but pertinent question that arises for
consideration in this Writ Petition.
2. The petitioner is a Physiotherapist by profession. He is
the accused in C.C.No.867 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. Ext.P1 charge sheet has been laid
against him alleging commission of offences under Section 419 of
the IPC, Sections 38 and 39 of the Travancore Cochin Medical
Practitioner’s Act, 1953 and Section 17 (4) of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956. Petitioner claims to be totally innocent of the
offences charged. He seeks to quash Ext.P1 charge sheet inter alia
contending that it is a falsely foisted case wherein not even a prima
facie case has been made out against him. He contends that
WP(C) NO.190/2013 3
2025:KER:11812
subjecting him to face the trial will be an exercise in futility and
enduring a trial will be trauma and punishment in itself. He has
hence filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:
1. (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction call
for the records leading to Ext. P1 charge sheet and quash the same.
2. (ii) Such other and further reliefs this Honourable Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.
3. A statement has been filed by the 1 st respondent
producing Annexure R1 (a) copy of an enquiry report submitted by
the District Medical Officer (Health), Kannur, inter alia stating that an
enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner/accused on the
basis of the complaints received from the general public and it has
been revealed in the said inquiry that the petitioner is not a qualified
medical practitioner and his practice as a ‘doctor’ is illegal.
4. The de facto complainant got impleaded in this W.P.(C)
as the additional 2nd respondent pursuant to the order in
I.A.No.13569 of 2013.
5. Heard Sri.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, Advocate, appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.Binoy Davis, learned
WP(C) NO.190/2013 42025:KER:11812
Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.
There was no appearance on behalf of the additional 2 nd
respondent.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that Ext.P1 charge sheet had been filed and was being
pursued under the misconception that a physiotherapist cannot be
addressed as a ‘doctor’ and that a physiotherapist is prohibited from
using the prefix ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’ to his name. Petitioner has been
conferred with a Bachelor of Physiotherapy degree after
successfully completing a full-fledged medical course spanning
more than 4½ years. He has been admitted to the Indian
Association of Physiotherapists as ‘Dr.K.V. Mohammed Jamsheer’.
The prefix ‘Dr.’ is based on tradition and convention and there is no
prohibition against using the said terms or designations under law. It
has a meaning apart from the dictionary meaning of addressing a
qualified practitioner of medicine, a person holding a doctorate etc.
Exhibiting a name board describing his name as ‘Dr.Muhammed
Jamsheer’ and attending to patients does not attract any offence
punishable under any of the provisions under which he is seen
WP(C) NO.190/2013 5
2025:KER:11812
charged. Further, Ext.P1 charge sheet does not disclose any
offence punishable under law. The Travancore Cochin Medical
Practitioners’ Act 1953, does not apply to Physiotherapists. No
offence can lie against the petitioner under the said statute. The FIR
states that the complaint was filed by an individual by name
M.C.Shereef upon seeing a news item on a TV channel. The same
cannot lead to an implication of the petitioner under the provisions of
the statutes under which he is now seen charged. The role played
by CW7, who is the husband of an allopathic doctor and an active
worker of All India Association of Allopathic Doctors, is clearly
manifest in the matter. The prosecution initiated is the result of a
collusion between the de facto complainant and the office bearers of
All India Association of Allopathic Doctors. Petitioner has been made
a scapegoat in the tussle between the physiotherapists and
allopathic doctors. Even the averments in the F.I.Statement do not
reveal any reason to implicate the petitioner. FIS only states that
Smt.Megha Raghavan along with one Nabeel Kamal,
Physiotherapist attached to the hospital had attended to the de facto
complainant and he was referred to Dr.Anil Sundareshan of Holistic
WP(C) NO.190/2013 6
2025:KER:11812
Medicine in the Apollo Clinic, City Centre, Kannur. The right of
physiotherapists to practice independently without registration for
such practice has been recognised by many Indian universities
including Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. Ext.P1 charge
sheet does not reveal all the ingredients of Section 415 IPC.
Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Vipin Sahni v.
Central Bureau of Investigation ( 2024 KHC 6195); Ram Jas v.
State of U.P. (1970 KHC 531). Regarding the question of
maintainability of the Writ Petition to challenge a charge sheet, the
learned counsel submitted that a Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution challenging Ext.P1 charge sheet is maintainable
as the inherent jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution is
designed to achieve the salutary purpose that criminal proceedings
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapons of
harassment. When the court is satisfied that the criminal proceeding
amounts to an abuse of the process of law or that it amounts to
bringing pressure upon the accused, in the exercise of inherent
powers, such proceedings can be quashed. Reliance is placed on
the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Kapil Agarwal and
WP(C) NO.190/2013 7
2025:KER:11812
others v. Sanjay Sharma and others (2021 KHC 6119). The
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is
contended can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any
court or to otherwise secure the ends of Justice when the allegations
in the First Information Report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a catena of decisions commencing from State of Haryana
and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (1992 KHC 600) to
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of Maharashtra
and others (2021 (3) KHC 25) to contend that the High Court under
Article 226 has the power to entertain a Writ Petition seeking to
quash an FIR or a charge sheet.
7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader,
challenges the very maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article
226 seeking to quash Ext.P1 charge sheet. He submits that the
WP(C) NO.190/2013 8
2025:KER:11812
petitioner has sought to quash the charge sheet by invoking Article
226 of the Constitution rather than seek the same relief under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on the dictum in
Thansingh Nathmal and others v. Superintendent of Taxes,
Dhubri and others [1964 KHC 576]. It was also open to the
petitioner to seek a discharge under Section 239 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Reliance is placed on the dictum in
Vijukumar R. v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC 1140]; Silvester @
Silver v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC 458]; Rajesh Kumar J. v.
Central Bureau of Investigation, Ekm and another [2021 KHC
692]). Without invoking or availing any of the said alternate options
available, the petitioner had rushed to this Court by filing this writ
which is an extraordinary remedy. On the said count of
maintainability itself, the learned Government Pleader seeks to
dismiss the Writ Petition. Coming to the merits of the matter, it is
submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has
been using the prefix ‘Dr.’ to his name in the advertisement
hoardings and boards claiming to be a specialist medical
practitioner. In India as per the extant laws, a person who possesses
WP(C) NO.190/2013 9
2025:KER:11812
a medical graduate degree recognised by a medical council alone
has the right to treat a patient by exhibiting a name board with the
prefix ‘Dr.’ to his name. The bachelor’s degree in Physiotherapy is
only a paramedical graduate degree. Petitioner obtained the said
degree from Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka,
in the year 2006. That does not entitle the petitioner to address
himself as a doctor or to add the prefix ‘Dr.’ to his name. A person
qualified in physiotherapy cannot attend to any patient
independently and he cannot prescribe medicines. He can attend to
a patient only with the instruction and close supervision of a medical
practitioner. Petitioner has apparently attended a 25-day course on
Orthopedic Manual Therapy in Australia. On the said basis, he has
been exhibiting his name board as a ‘Manipulative Physiotherapist
and Spine Specialist’. The same is misleading and illegal. Reliance
is also placed on the dictum laid down by the Patna High Court in its
judgment in Sarjoo Prasad and others v. The State of Bihar and
others [(2003) SCC OnLine Pat 188]. It had been held therein that
occupational therapists/ physiotherapists could not use the prefix
‘doctor’ in their names and that they could not prescribe allopathic
WP(C) NO.190/2013 10
2025:KER:11812
medicines. Even if occupational therapy and physiotherapy have
acquired the status of recognised disciplines in medical science, the
practitioners thereof cannot practice modern scientific medicines.
The learned Government Pleader submitted that no person can
practice medicine in any State unless he possesses the requisite
qualification and is enrolled as a medical practitioner on the State
Medical Register. The consequences of the breach of these
provisions are indicated in Sub-section 3 of Section 15 which
stipulates a punishment of imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year or with a fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees or with both. A person who does not have knowledge of a
particular medical system of medicine, but practices in that system is
a quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to
put it differently, a charlatan. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid
down in this respect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Poonam
Verma v. Ashwin Patel and others [(1996) 4 SCC 332]. Placing
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in
Sanjib Das v. State of West Bengal and others [2014 KHC 2010],
it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that a person
WP(C) NO.190/2013 11
2025:KER:11812
who has obtained a medical qualification in terms of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 and whose name appears in the register
of medical practitioners as contemplated under the said Act of 1956,
alone is entitled to use the prefix ‘Doctor’ or ‘Dr’. To allow any other
person to use such a prefix and to practise medicines would be
against the scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the
Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916. Relying on the dictum laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India and
another v. State of Rajasthan and another [1996 KHC 1062] it is
submitted that the basic qualification for registration as a medical
practitioner is an M.B.B.S. degree and no person is entitled to be
registered by the State Medical Board under the Medical Council
Act, 1956 unless he has qualified himself in medicine. My attention
is also invited to the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madras
in Physiotherapists Development Association v. State of Tamil
Nadu and another (W.P.No.21225 of 2014 dated 17.08.2022)
wherein the challenge to the orders issued by the Government
preventing the physio therapists from using the words ‘Dr.’ before
their name was considered. Relying on the dictum laid down by the
WP(C) NO.190/2013 12
2025:KER:11812
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Poonam Verma (supra), it was held that
a physiotherapist only provides a supportive treatment of medicine
and they cannot become part of an alternative system of medicine in
order to confer the title of a ‘Doctor’ which allows them to
independently practice, diagnose and treat patients. It was further
held that the title ‘Dr.’ is only conferred on those persons who
possess recognised qualifications as per the Indian Medicine
Central Council Act and who are registered before the concerned
State Medical Councils. As regards the claim of the petitioner to be a
specialist in ‘Manipulative Physiotherapist and Spine Specialist’,
relying on the dictum laid down by the Allahabad High Court in
Neetu Rastogi Dr. v. Union of India and others [2017 KHC 3789]
it was contended that a person cannot claim to be a specialist on the
strength of a Diploma Certificate and such a certificate will not
confer any authority of such person to claim the specialisation.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum v. State of Kerala
and others [2018 (3) KHC 185], it was submitted that the capacity
to diagnose the disease would depend upon the fact as to whether
WP(C) NO.190/2013 13
2025:KER:11812
the practitioner has the necessary professional skill to do so. Even a
person who has acquired the prescribed diploma or degree from a
recognised institution would not be entitled to practice medicine
unless he is so registered under the provisions of the Indian
Medicine Central Council Act. Referring to the dictum in Dr. A.K.
Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala and others (AIR 1992 SC 1310) it
is submitted that permitting a person to practice who does not
possess the recognised medical qualification in the allopathic
medical qualification for that system of medicine is inconsistent with
the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act. As
regards the definition of the term ‘treatment’ relying on the reference
in The Medical Relief Society of South Kanara, Manipal v. Union
of India [(1999) SCC OnLine Kar 77], it was submitted that it
includes examination and diagnosis as well as application of
remedies. The diagnosis of the disease may itself involve a
prolonged investigation and may in turn constitute a part of the
treatment to be given to the patient, it is contended. The petitioner
with his qualifications is thoroughly incompetent to do such
‘treatment’/ ‘diagnosis’. The learned Government Pleader also
WP(C) NO.190/2013 14
2025:KER:11812
placed reliance on the dictum laid down by this Court in State of
Kerala v. Dr. C.K.Bharathan [1989 KHC 170]; and submits that it
had been held therein that if the accused had made the name board
with the questioned degrees, or if the accused got the prescribed
slips printed describing himself as holder of such degrees, perhaps
such acts would only have reached the stage of preparation. But,
when he released such prescription slips to others or when he
exhibited such names for others to read, he crosses the stage of
preparation and transgresses into the realm of attempt. The learned
Government Pleader thus submitted that the charge laid against the
petitioner vide Ext.P1 is sustainable and he should stand trial. Any
interference at this stage with the charge sheet is premature and a
sufficient prima facie case has been made out against him to sustain
the charge.
8. Having heard both sides in detail and perusing the
documents produced, the questions that come to the fore for
consideration are whether the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner
seeking to quash Ext.A1 charge sheet is maintainable in law and if it
is maintainable, whether a case has been made out to quash the
WP(C) NO.190/2013 15
2025:KER:11812
same.
9. A petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. though is the
most frequently availed and preferred route while seeking to quash
criminal proceedings or a charge sheet, the extraordinary jurisdiction
vested in this Court under Article 226 is not a totally prohibited or
closed option. In Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has pithily laid down the parameters that would be
applicable and/or the aspects required to be considered by the High
Court while entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 inter alia while quashing a criminal charge. This
Court has in Leby Sajeendran v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC
Online 7029] while considering a Writ Petition filed seeking to quash
a final report laid in a Section 309 IPC matter, held that though the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is couched in wide terms
and exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions, the ideal
course would have been to resort to Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing the final report. Taking note of the dictum as laid down in
Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) which reiterates that invoking the
jurisdiction under Article 226 is not an anathema to the prayer to
WP(C) NO.190/2013 16
2025:KER:11812
quash a criminal charge sheet and the fact that this Writ Petition had
been admitted way back in the year 2013, I feel it not proper to
relegate the party to resort to the remedy under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
at this point of time. Hence in the facts and circumstances of this
case, this Writ Petition filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution
seeking to quash Ext. P1 charge sheet is treated as maintainable.
10. The next question to be considered is whether the
petitioner has made a case for quashing Ext. A1 charge sheet. This
in turn would require me to assess whether a prima facie case has
been made out regarding the offences under which the petitioner is
charged and then the crucial question whether the charge sheet laid
is liable to be quashed. It is trite law that the power of quashing
criminal proceedings should be exercised with great circumspection
and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It is not justified for the High
Court to embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the final report or complaint.
[See State of West Bengal and others v. Swapan Kumar Guha
and others [1982 KHC 419]; Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and
another [1985 KHC 597]; State of U.P. v. O.P.Sharma [1996 KHC
WP(C) NO.190/2013 17
2025:KER:11812
1061]; Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada [1997 KHC 1337];
State of Kerala v. O.C.Kuttan [1999 KHC 172]; Mahendra K.C. v.
State of Karnataka and another [2021 KHC 6665]; Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and another
(2021 (3) KHC 25)]. This Court had in PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 637] considered the scope and
ambit of its own jurisdiction while exercising the powers to quash
criminal proceedings and have concluded that finding on the veracity
of a material relied on by the prosecution in a case where the
allegations levelled by the prosecution discloses a cognizable
offence is not a consideration for the High Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Though in the case at hand,
the petitioner has invoked Article 226 and sought to quash the
charge sheet, the circumspection and care to be exhibited while
entertaining such a writ is the same or even more rigorous as that
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioner has been charged under
Section 419 of the IPC, Sections 38 and 39 of the Travancore
Cochin Medical Practitioner’s Act 1953, and Section 17 (4) of the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The offence of cheating has been
WP(C) NO.190/2013 18
2025:KER:11812
defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. To constitute an
offence under Section 419 of the IPC all the ingredients of Section
415 IPC must be present. The ingredients required to constitute an
offence of cheating are as follows:
(i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person
by deceiving him;
(ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any
property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any
property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally
induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived; and
(iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one
which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person
induced in body, mind, reputation or property.
11. A roving inquiry into the facts and circumstances as
revealed from the pleadings and documents put forth in this W.P.(C)
so as to assess whether the ingredients constitute the offence of
cheating and whether the evidence laid out in the charge sheet
would be sufficient to meet the mandates of Section 415 of the
WP(C) NO.190/2013 19
2025:KER:11812
Indian Penal Code is not contemplated in this writ proceedings
under Article 226 of the constitution. Hence I forebear from
appreciating the worth or the evidentiary value of the material
produced along with the Writ Petition and the statement. Suffice it to
say that it is trite law as confirmed by the precedents that as per the
extant laws, a person who possesses a medical graduate degree
recognised by a medical council alone has the right to treat a patient
by exhibiting a name board with the prefix ‘Dr.’ to his name.
Occupational therapists/physiotherapists could not use the prefix
‘doctor’ in their names and they could not prescribe allopathic
medicines. a person who has obtained a medical qualification in
terms of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and whose name
appears in the register of medical practitioners as contemplated
under the said Act of 1956, alone is entitled to use the prefix ‘Doctor’
or ‘Dr’. To allow any other person to use such a prefix and to
practise medicines would be against the scheme of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Indian Medical Degrees Act,
1916. The precedents as laid down in the Medical Council of India
(supra), Poonam Verma (supra) Physiotherapists Development
WP(C) NO.190/2013 20
2025:KER:11812
Association (supra) substantiate the above conclusion. Coming to
the question of whether the petitioner had in the facts and
circumstances put forth himself as a doctor to the public at large and
had used office stationery and name board on the street with ‘Dr’ or
‘Doctor’ prefixed to his name as alleged in the charge sheet and
whether he ‘treated’ patients putting forth himself as a doctor are all
essentially question of fact to be decided on the merits of the
evidence to be tendered in the matter. Though contentions for and
against have been raised before me regarding the name board on
the street and the office stationary allegedly used by the petitioner, I
refrain from discussing the merits of the same. Though the law on
the point as to whether a person who has not been conferred the
title of a ‘Doctor’ after a prescribed course of study can use it as a
prefix in his name as of right has been considered and laid down in
the precedents as relied on by the learned Government Pleader as
elaborated above, the applicability of the same to the facts of the
case of the petitioner is a question that has to be answered on the
basis of evidence to be tendered in trial.
In view of the above, I find that the contentions put forth by
WP(C) NO.190/2013 21
2025:KER:11812
the petitioner to quash Ext.P1 charge sheet are not maintainable.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. It is clarified that no observations
have been made on the merits of the matter and the proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P1 charge shall be conducted untrammelled by any
observations made in this judgment. All interlocutory applications
stand closed.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
WP(C) NO.190/2013 22
2025:KER:11812
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S DOCUMENTS:
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE
KANNUR TOWN POLICE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT – I, KANNUREXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ARTICLE AVAILABLE IN WEBSITE.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE
INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSIOTHERAPISTSEXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF RECENT ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN INDIAN
EXPRESS AND AVAILABLE IN WEBSITE.
EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE DATED
03.03.2006 AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER IN THE 8TH
CONVOCATION OF RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH
SCIENCES, KARNATAKAEXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE INDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR
PHYSIOTHERAPISTEXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE UNDER THE SCHEME
EDUCATION FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN MANUAL
CONCEPT ISSUED BY THE CURTIN UNIVERSITYEXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN SPINAL MANUAL
THERAPY IN THE EDUCATION FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
PROGRAMME SPONSORED BY CURTIN UNIVERSITY OF
TECHNOLOGY, PERTH, AUSTRALIAEXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF ONE OF ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN THE
INTERNETEXT.P10 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.6.2011 AND MADE IN
WP(C) NO.36941/2010 OF THIS COURTEXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26.12.2012
IN WP(C) NO.22347/2012 OF THIS COURT
WP(C) NO.190/2013 232025:KER:11812
EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MHATMAGANDHI
UNIVERSITY REGULATION SCHEME AND SYLLABUS FOR
BACHELOR OF PHYSIOTHERAPYEXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL
COUNCIL OF INDIA DATED 29.9.1994EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF MODEL
CURRICULUM HANDBOOK IN PHYSIOTHERAPY ISSUED BY
THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE ALLIED
HEALTH SECTION 2015-2016.
EXT.P15 : TRUE COPY OF TEH CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
ISSUED BY KERALA DENTAL COUNCIL
EXT.P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR
INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE.
EXT.P17 : TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
2.5.2018
EXT.P18 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.05.2016
ISSUED BY REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE
ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
PASSPORT BEARING NO.K0513335 DATED
21.11.2011 ISSUED BY REGIONAL PASSPORT
OFFICE, KOZHIKODE
ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SHOWCAUSE NOTICE DATED
9.5.2016
ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.5.2016
ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
23.05.2016
ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
23.5.2016 ISSUED BY REGIONAL PASSPORT
OFFICER
ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER ISSUED BY
M/S.VASAN EYE CARE, DUBAI, UAE
WP(C) NO.190/2013 24
2025:KER:11812
RESPONDENTS’ DOCUMENTS :
ANNEXURE R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT
