Kerala High Court
Kerala Private Hospitals Association … vs State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2025
1
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1365 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA PRIVATE HOSPITALS ASSOCIATION HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT KPHA HEADQUARTERS,
ASHIR BHAVAN ROAD, KACHERIPPADY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682018,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, HUSSAIN KOYA THANGAL.
2 HUSSAIN KOYA THANGAL,
CHAIRMAN, NIMS HOSPITAL, WANDOOR,
PB NO.17, P.O. VANIYAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
KERALA-679339.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
SRI.K.ANAND
SHRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT. GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), KASARGOD-671121.
3 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), KANNUR-670002.
2
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
4 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), KOZHIKODE-673020.
5 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121.
6 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), PALAKKAD-678001.
7 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), MALAPPURAM-676505.
8 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), TRICHUR-680003.
9 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), ERNAKULAM-682030.
10 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), ALLEPPEY-688001.
11 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), KOTTAYAM-686002.
12 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), IDUKKI-685603.
13 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), PATHANAMTHITTA-689645.
14 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
3
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), KOLLAM-691013.
15 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
(REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), TRIVANDRUM-995013.
ADDL.R16 P.C.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
AGED 64, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, LEGAL CELL
PRESIDENT, HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION MISSION MAJOR ROAD
VYITTILA, COCHIN.
(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/6/19 IN
I.A.NO.1/2019 IN WPC NO.1365/19.)
ADDL.R17 SASIKUMAR PALAKALAM,
AGED 66 YEARS, PALAKALAM HOUSE, ITHITHANAM P.O.,
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. PIN -686535.
ADDL.R18 JALY MALOOR, AGED 61 YEARS,
MALOOR HOUSE, PULLAD P.O., PIN -689548.
ADDL.R19 AL SHABEER RAHMAN,
AGED 49 YEARS, TC48/217, BILAL NAGAR,
AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA P.O., MUTTATHARA,
PIN -695026.
ADDL.R20 SEBASTIAN K.V.,
AGED 54 YEARS, KUNNINE HOUSE, NATIONAL NAGAR,
SHIRIBAGILU PO/VILLAGE, ULIYATHADUKA, PIN - 671124.
ADDL.R21 SINU L.R., AGED 45 YEARS, SANTHI NAGAR 219 A,
KUZHIVILA PUTHAN VEEDU, AYATHIL, PATTATHANAM P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691021.
[ADDL.R17 TO R21 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
30.01.2024 IN I.A-1/2024 IN WP(C) NO.1365/2019]
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
SRI.AJIT JOY
SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
4
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
SRI.A.ABDUL RAHMAN (A-1917)
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
SHRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.06.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.2870/2024, 2637/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 23.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2870 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 MEDICAL LABORATORY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
REGISTERED NO.ER 409/2010, KERALA STATE COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, S. VIJAYAN PILLA,
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAN PILLA, RESIDING AT
SOWPARNIKA, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 690518.
2 P.K. RAJEESH KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. NARAYANAN, SECRETARY, MEDICAL LABORATORY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, REGISTERED NO. ER 409/2010, KERALA STATE
COMMITTEE, RESIDING AT KATTOOR HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670502.
3 NAUSHAD METHAR E.A., AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O. ABDUL KHADER, PROPRIETOR, NAS HI-CARE LAB,
ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT BAITHURAHMA, VATTAYAL WARD,
VALIYAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688012.
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
6
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
3 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) KASARGODE P.O.,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671121.
4 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KANNUR P.O., KANNUR, PIN -
670002
5 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KOZHIKODE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020.
6 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)]
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KALPETTA P.O.,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673121.
7 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) PALAKKAD P.O.,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.
8 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) MALAPPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505.
9 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) THRISSUR P.O., THRISSUR,
PIN - 680003.
10 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) ERNAKULAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030.
7
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
11 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) ALLEPPEY P.O.,
ALLEPPEY, PIN - 688001.
12 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) KOTTAYAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002.
13 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) IDUKKI P.O., IDUKKI,
PIN - 685603.
14 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645.
15 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM,
PIN - 691013.
16 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM G.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013.
BY ADVS.
SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SHRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).1365/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
23.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
8
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.2637 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 KERALA PRIVATE CLINICS ASSOCIATION(K.P.C.A.),
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PATTIKKAD,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 325,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PRADEEP.K.,
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SIVADASAN.K., KUNDUPURATH HOUSE,
THEKKUMMURI.P.O., KARALMANNA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 SIDDIQUE ALI, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O. KUNJI MARAKKAR, THOTTAPALLI HOUSE,
PAYIPULLU THUVUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 327.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KOZHIKODE - 673 020.
3 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), PALAKKAD - 678 001.
9
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
4 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
BY SRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.06.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).1365/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
23.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
10
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27168 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 INDIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, AGED 51 YEARS,
KERALA STATE, OFFICE AT MARIAM DENTAL CARE,
KUTTIPURAM ROAD, VALANCHERY - 676552, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DR. DEEBU J.
MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. P.J. MATHEW, RESIDING AT
MULLASSERIL HOUSE, BEHIND V.S.C. BANK, TIRUR ROAD,
VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 DR. JOHN SHIBU N., AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. J. NELSON, J.P. DENTAL SPECIALTY CLINIC,
ALTHARA JUNCTION, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,
RESIDING AT HALIFAX, TRA 12/BB, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691012.
3 DR.RAGESH GANGADHARAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. DR.GANGADHARAN, MALABAR DENTAL CLINIC, MANALIMMAL
BUS STAND, PANDIKKAD ROAD, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-
679328, RESIDING AT CHAITHANYA HOUSE, PATHIRIPADAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679334.
4 DR. SIBY T. CHENNANKARA, AGED 56 YEARS,
S/O.J.THOMAS, SWISS DENTAL CARE, OPPOSITE KENDRIYA
VIDYALAYA, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682020,
RESIDING AT CHENNAKARA HOUSE, MELTHARA LANE EDAPALLY
P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682024.
BY ADVS.
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.KAVYA VARMA M. M.
11
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
SHRI.SIDHARTH.R.WARIYAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
3 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) KASARGODE P.O.,
KASARGOD, PIN - 671121.
4 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KANNUR P.O., KANNUR,
PIN - 670002.
5 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KOZHIKODE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020.
6 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)]
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KALPETTA P.O.,
WAYANAD, PIN - 673121.
7 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) PALAKKAD P.O.,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001.
8 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) MALAPPURAM P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505.
12
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
9 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) THRISSUR P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680003.
10 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) ERNAKULAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030.
11 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) ALLEPPEY P.O.,
ALLEPPEY, PIN - 688001.
12 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) KOTTAYAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002.
13 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) IDUKKI P.O.,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685603.
14 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645.
15 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH) KOLLAM P.O.,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013.
16 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM G.P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695013.
17 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
13
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SHRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.06.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).1365/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
23.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
14
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 29353 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,
KERALA STATE BRANCH, INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION STATE
HEADQUARTERS, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 029,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - DR.SULPHI N.
2 HOSPITAL BOARD OF INDIA,
KERALA CHAPTER, INDIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION STATE
HEADQUARTERS, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 029,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - DR. DEEPAK JOSEPH
CHAZHIKKADAN.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER (SR.)
SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM G.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
2 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
3 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O.(HEALTH), KASARGODE P.O.,
15
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
KASARGOD - 671 121.
4 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KANNUR P.O.,
KANNUR - 670 002.
5 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KOZHIKODE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE - 673 020.
6 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KALPETTA P.O.,
WAYANAD - 673 121.
7 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), PALAKKAD P.O.,
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
8 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), MALAPPURAM .P.O.,
MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
9 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), TRICHUR P.O.,
TRICHUR - 680 003.
10 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), ERNAKULAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
11 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), ALLEPPEY P.O.,
ALLEPPEY - 688 001.
16
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
12 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), KOTTAYAM P.O.,
KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
13 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), IDUKKI P.O.,
IDUKKI - 685 603.
14 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.
15 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O.,
CHATHAYAMANGALAM - 691 013.
16 THE DISTRICT REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
OFFICE OF THE D.M.O. (HEALTH), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM G.P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 013.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SHRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.06.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).1365/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
23.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
17
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41738 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 DR.K.A. SUNIL, AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O. DR.K.V.APPUKUTTAN, DENTAL SURGEON, DENTAL CENTRE,
MALAKUNNAM.P.O., CHANGANASSERY, RESIDING AT KADAPPAYIL
DEVIKA, MALAKUNNAM.P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686535.
2 DR.AJIKUMAR. V., AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O. M.P.VASU, DENTAL SURGEON, POLY DENTAL CLINIC, NORTH
RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT SREE LAKSHMI
APARTMENTS, POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN,
PIN - 682018.
3 DR.CIJU A PAULOSE, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O. M.P.PAULOSE, DENTAL SURGEON, ARACKAL DENTAL CARE,
MUDAVOOR.P.O, RESIDING AT ARACKAL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR.P.O,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686669.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SURENDRAN
KUM.S.MAYUKHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
18
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
3 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
4 SECRETARY, KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR CLINICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS, 2ND FLOOR HOSTEL BLOCK, KERALA STATE
INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014.
5 REGISTRAR, KERALA DENTAL COUNCIL,
TC-27/741(3), AMBALATHUMUKKU, VANCHIYOOR (P.O)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.N.RAGHURAJ (SR.)
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SMT.SAYUJYA RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2025,
ALONG WITH WP(C).1365/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
23.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
19
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.1365/2019, 2870/2024, 2637/2019,
27168/2023, 29353/2019 and 41738/2023]
It is often said that health is a human right and, therefore,
a prerequisite in the overall development of a nation, which is
achieved through the intervention of human beings. Health is
described as a state of complete physical, mental, and social
well-being of an individual. The Constitution of India under
Article 21 mandates the protection of “life” and personal liberty
of the citizen. The Directive Principles of State Policy – under
Article 47- also lays down that it is the duty of the State to
improve “Public Health”. The challenge in these writ petitions is
to be considered in the backdrop of the afore-mentioned broad
principles.
2. These writ petitions have been filed seeking to
challenge various provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments
20
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
(Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to
as “Act”) and the Rules made thereunder (hereinafter referred to
as “Rules”) as unconstitutional and arbitrary on various counts.
3. A reading of the preamble to the Act in question shows
that the same is enacted for prescribing standards of facilities in
services which may be provided by the clinical establishments for
improvement of the “public health”. The term “clinical
establishment” has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Act to
cover a hospital, maternity home, nursing home, clinic,
sanatorium, or any institution that offers services, facilities with
or without beds requiring treatment, diagnosis, or care for
illness, injury, etc. The Act under Chapter IV provides for
registration and standards for clinical establishments. The Act
also provides for the cancellation of registration in certain
circumstances. Chapter V provides for penalties for
contravention of the provisions of the Act, non-registration, etc.
Chapter VII provides for appeals, revision, etc., against various
21
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
proceedings issued under the Act. Chapter VIII lays down the
provisions with reference to the inspection of the clinical
establishments. Chapter IX lays down miscellaneous provisions
like the display of the certificate of registration of the medical
establishment, maintenance of medical records, etc. Section 52
of the Act provides for the rule-making power, under which the
Rules have been framed.
4. W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019 is filed by the Kerala Private
Hospital Association and others seeking to challenge Sections
16(2) and 39(2) and (3) of the Act as arbitrary and violative of
Part III of the Constitution. They have also sought for a
declaration that they are not liable to furnish the data required
under the Act and Rules. W.P(C) No.29353 of 2019 is filed by the
Indian Medical Association, Kerala State branch, as well as the
Hospital Board of India, seeking to challenge various provisions
of the Act and Rules as unconstitutional and unenforceable and
ultra vires to the Act, respectively. W.P(C) No.27168 of 2023 is
22
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
filed by the Indian Dental Association seeking almost similar
reliefs. W.P(C) No.41738 of 2023 is filed by a few dentists
seeking the same relief. They have also sought for a declaration
that the inclusion of “dentistry” under Section 2(j) of the Act is
unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. W.P.(C) No.2637 of 2019 is filed by the Kerala Private
Clinics Association and another seeking the same reliefs. W.P(C)
No.2870 of 2024 is filed by the Medical Laboratory Owners
Association seeking to challenge the provisions of the Act and
Rules referred to above.
5. I have heard Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam,
Sri.George Poonthottam, Sri.K.I. Mayankutty Mather, the learned
senior counsel, Sri.R.Surendran and Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha
Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.
Manoj Kumar, the State Attorney, on behalf of the respondent
State. I have also heard Sri.Ajit Joy for the intervenors in W.P(C)
No.1365 of 2019.
23
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
6. Sri.Kannanthanam, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner in W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019 would contend that: –
i. Though Section 39(2) of the Act provides for display of
“fee rate” and “package rate” for the service/facility
available, what is meant by “fee rate” and “package rate”
has not been defined. Therefore, according to him, this
leads to a situation where the enforcing Authorities can
proceed against the petitioners at their whims and fancies.
ii. To obtain registration under the Act, various details have
to be provided, as insisted under Form 2A, which goes
against the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, since the
notification required under Section 4(1)(g) has not been
issued.
iii. Section 47 of the Act, which requires the extension of
treatment during emergencies, leads to impossibilities, at
least with respect to rural areas.
iv. With respect to Section 26 of the Act – prescribing
imposition of penalties – he would submit that, what leads
to contravention of the Act has not been provided for.
7. Sri.Mather, the learned senior counsel for the Indian
Medical Association, would contend that: –
24
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
i. The validity of the enactment challenged in the writ
petition is not pressed.
ii. Section 14(3)(a) and (c) provides unbridled powers to the
Authority under the statute to suspend/cancel the clinical
establishments when there is “imminent danger to public
health”, without defining what is “imminent danger.”
iii. He contends that the provisions can be used by the
Authorities at their whims and fancies. For instance, he
points out that in a hospital with various
specialities/departments, a minor negligence in one
speciality would lead to suspension/cancellation of the
registration of the entire hospital.
iv. The statute provides for immediate closure on
suspension/cancellation as above, forcing the patients who
have already been admitted in the hospital to move out
immediately/ within a short notice.
v. Section 47(1) providing for “safe transport of the patient”
leads to practical difficulties.
vi. Section 39, which provides for the display of certificates,
etc., including the “fee rate and package rate,” leads to
uncertainties.
25
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
vii. Rule 24(7)(3) of the Rules invades the “privacy” of a
patient.
8. Sri.Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel representing
the Indian Dental Association, would contend that:-
i. Under Section 3 of the Act, with respect to the establishment
of a State Council, one representative from “welfare
organisation of the patients in the State” is seen included and
insofar as the State Council is in the form of an expert body,
the afore inclusion is patently illegal. He would also point out
the constitution of the “Executive Committee” under Section
8, wherein the representative of the welfare organisation of
the patients to be nominated by the Government is also
included and would contend that arbitrariness is writ large as
seen from the inclusion of the afore representative/s.
ii. He would rely on Section 14(3)(a) and (c) of the Act to
contend that unguided power had been bestowed on
authorities to suspend/ cancel the registration.
iii. He would invite the attention to the definition of the term
clinical establishments under Section 2(c)(i) to show the
non-application of mind while framing the statute, insofar as
“medical colleges” are not covered.
26
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
iv. He would rely on Section 16(6) of the Act to point out that
though several registrations are visualized for each category
of a clinical establishment, with reference to the cancellation
under the statute, individual cancellation of the category of
the medical establishment is not provided for.
v. He would contend that the provisions of Section 19(11), by
which results of inspection are being made available to the
public, would lead to unforeseen results.
vi. The provisions of Section 19(14) permitting cancellation of
the registration on non-acquisition of prescribed standards,
without affording an opportunity for correction, would lead
to bureaucratic abuse.
vii. Section 25(1)(b) is also referred, to contend that excessive
powers are conferred on Authority to cancel the registration.
viii. Section 27(3) visualises evidence from a third party -a
complete stranger- and therefore the enquiry thereunder is
not to be permitted.
ix. Sections 37 and 38 provide for inspection/search of clinical
establishments leading to violation of the privacy of
employees and patients.
x. He would contend that “fee rate” and “package rate” having
not been defined, Section 39 of the Act becomes unworkable.
27
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
xi. He would contend that provisions of Section 42 extending
protection against action taken in good faith to the Authority
or the Council are to be made applicable to the clinical
establishments also.
xii. Section 47 has been enacted, making it mandatory for every
clinical establishment to provide treatments in case of
emergency, without considering the ground realities.
xiii. He has made a comparison to the provisions of similar
enactments in Tamil Nadu to show that the impugned Act and
the Rules are only to be declared unconstitutional.
9. Sri.Surendran, the learned counsel for the individual
Dentists who are the petitioners in W.P(C) No.41738 of 2023,
would contend that:-
i. As the Union passed Central Act 23 of 2010, which was
enacted at the request of a few States, the State of Kerala,
being not one among them, is not entitled to enact the Act
in question.
ii. He would rely on Section 2(c) of the Central Act to contend
that “dentistry” is not covered, whereas, under the Kerala
Act, dentistry is specifically seen covered under Section
2(c) read with 2(j).
28
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
iii. Dentists are independently covered under the Dentists Act,
1948, under the supervision of the Dental Council of India.
10. Per contra, Sri. Manoj Kumar, the learned State
Attorney on behalf of the State, would contend that: –
i. The primary objective of the Act is to safeguard public
health and patient safety. Therefore, it affects the
community at large by empowering patients to make
informed choices about hospitals and clinical
establishments. The Act intends to promote ethical
standards in clinical practice by introducing a regulatory
framework that provides for transparency.
ii. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that there is a
presumption in favour of constitutionality. A statute
cannot be held unconstitutional merely because it is
arbitrary. Even assuming it is so, the Courts do not
examine the wisdom of the legislature, it is only the
violation of the constitutional provision/s that is to be
looked into.
iii. When private interest is pitted against public interest,
particularly in the field of public health, the larger public
interest is the one that should be considered.
29
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
iv. The mere "possibility" of abuse/misuse of a statutory
provision is not to be a guiding factor in considering the
constitutionality of a statute.
v. The writ petitions have been presented without
establishing a cause of action.
vi. With reference to the requirement for displaying the rate,
reference is made to the order dated 27.02.2024 of the
Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.648 of 2020, to
point out that even the Apex Court directed to convene
a meeting of the stake holders and to come up with a
concrete proposal.
vii. There is no violation of privacy as contended with
reference to the requirement to provide the details of
doctors and such other nursing staff, as many of the
established hospitals have provided such information on
their respective websites. With reference to statistics, it
has been pointed out that the majority of the hospitals
have obtained registration under the Act in question.
viii. The cancellation of registration, etc., are after following
due process of law.
11. Sri. Ajit Joy, on behalf of the intervenors, would point
out that:-
30
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
i. The writ petitions are only to be rejected insofar as the
Act and the Rules impugned in the writ petitions only
seek to provide for transparency.
ii. With examples, he would contend that various hospitals
have already published the amounts being charged by
them for various treatments provided by them.
iii. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in W.P(C) No.10659 of 2021, he contends that the
writ petitions are only to be rejected.
12. Thus, on a consideration of the rival contentions in
these writ petitions noticed as above, the following questions
arise for consideration.
i. Can the State of Kerala enact the legislation in question,
on the face of the Central Act, 23 of 2010?
ii. Are the impugned Act and the Rules made thereunder,
unconstitutional?
iii. Are the provisions of the Act requiring the display of “fee
rate” and “package rate”, without defining the “fee rate”
and “package rate”, unenforceable?
iv. Does the provision entitling the suspension/cancellation
provide for unbridled powers on the statutory Authority?
31
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
v. Is there any arbitrariness with respect to Section 3 of the
Act as contended?
vi. Is the inclusion of “dentistry” in the impugned Kerala
statute, constitutional?
13. The first issue arising for consideration is with
reference to the contention raised by Sri. Surendran, counsel
of the petitioners in W.P(C) No.41738 of 2023, that insofar as
the Parliament has passed the Central Act, 23 of 2010, the
State of Kerala is not entitled to enact the statute in question.
He makes the above submission with reference to the
provisions of Article 252 of the Constitution of India. According
to him, by virtue of the enactment of the Central Act under
Article 252(1), the Central Act is capable of being adopted by
other States like the State of Kerala, which have not sponsored
a resolution under Article 252(1).
14. It is under Article 246(3) that the State Legislature
is empowered to enact laws, with specific reference to the
matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule of the
32
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
Constitution. It is not in dispute that Entry 6 to List II of the
Seventh Schedule covers “Public health and sanitation;
hospitals and dispensaries” and that it is with reference to the
afore Entry, the State has enacted the legislation in question.
Under certain circumstances, even the Parliament is entitled
to legislate with respect to the matters in the State List- in the
national interest under Article 249 and in the event of the
proclamation of an emergency under Article 250. Similarly,
Article 252 of the Constitution provides as under:-
“252. Power of Parliament to legislate for two or more
States by consent and adoption of such legislation by
any other State.
(1)If it appears to the Legislatures of two or more States
to be desirable that any of the matters with respect to
which Parliament has no power to make laws for the
States except as provided in articles 249 and 250 should
be regulated in such States by Parliament by law, and if
resolutions to that effect are passed by all the Houses of
the Legislatures of those States, it shall be lawful for
Parliament to pass an Act for regulating that matter
accordingly, and any Act so passed shall apply to such
33W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533States and to any other State by which it is adopted
afterwards by resolution passed in that behalf by the
House or, where there are two Houses, by each of the
Houses of the Legislature of that State.
(2) Any Act so passed by Parliament may be amended or
repealed by an Act of Parliament passed or adopted in
like manner but shall not, as respects any State to which
it applies, be amended or repealed by an Act of the
Legislature of that State.”
Under Article 252(1), two or more States can, by resolution,
empower the Parliament to make laws with respect to matters
for which the Parliament has no power to legislate. The Central
Act in question has been passed on the basis of resolutions of
as many as four States. Article 252(2) further provides that
any legislation so passed by the Parliament “may be adopted”
by another State. Thus, it is the choice of the State which has
not passed a resolution under Article 252(1) to adopt a
legislation made under Article 252(1). The Constitution
nowhere provides that in the event of the Parliament
legislating on a particular aspect falling under the State List
34W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533on the basis of resolutions passed by the Legislatures of some
of the States, the remaining States are bound to adopt the
said legislation or are not empowered to legislate under Article
246 independently. A reading of the Central Act would also
make this position clear, where under Section 1(2), the
requirement for adoption by the non-sponsoring States have
been clearly laid down.
15. The learned counsel, Sri.Surendran also relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Valluri
Basavaiah Chowdhary and Others [(1979) 3 SCC 324]
in support of his submission. However, the afore judgment is
not a proposition for the submission made by the learned
counsel as above. In the afore case, the Act in question has
been passed by the Parliament on the basis of the resolution
passed by the Legislatures of 11 States, not including the
State of Rajasthan. However, in Schedule I to the Act, all the
States were listed out, irrespective of whether they have
35
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
passed a resolution under Article 252(1) or not. The legislation
was with respect to an item under Entry 18 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule. A contention was raised before the Apex
Court that though the State of Rajasthan has subsequently
passed a resolution adopting the Act in question, insofar as
the State Legislature of Rajasthan never authorised the
Parliament to enact a law originally, that could not be adopted
by a later resolution passed by the State Legislature of
Rajasthan. It is this contention that was considered by the
Apex Court, holding that as regards the State of Rajasthan or
such other State which have not sponsored a resolution under
Article 252(1), the Act in question would “lay dormant” till
such time the Act stood adopted by the State Legislature of
Rajasthan. Therefore, in my opinion, the afore decision is not
one supporting the case set up by Sri. Surendran.
16. The second issue arising for consideration is as to
whether the impugned Act and Rules are unconstitutional. As
36
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
already noticed, the gravamen of the contentions raised is with
reference to the unguided powers vested on the statutory
authorities, arbitrarily.
17. The Apex Court in State of A.P. and Others v.
McDowell & Co. and Others [(1996) 3 SCC 709] had
occasion to consider as to the grounds on which a law made
by the Parliament/Legislature can be struck down, holding as
under: –
“43. Shri Rohinton Nariman submitted that inasmuch
as a large number of persons falling within the
exempted categories are allowed to consume
intoxicating liquors in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the
total prohibition of manufacture and production of
these liquors is “arbitrary” and the amending Act is
liable to be struck down on this ground alone. Support
for this proposition is sought from a judgment of this
Court in State of T.N. v. Ananthi Ammal. Before,
however, we refer to the holding in the said decision,
it would be appropriate to remind ourselves of certain
basic propositions in this behalf. In the United
Kingdom, the Parliament is supreme. There are no
limitations upon the power of the Parliament. No Court
37W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533in the United Kingdom can strike down an Act made by
the Parliament on any ground. As against this, the
United States of America has a Federal Constitution
where the power of the Congress and the State
Legislatures to make laws is limited in two ways, viz.,
the division of legislative powers between the States
and the federal government and the fundamental
rights (Bill of Rights) incorporated in the Constitution.
In India, the position is similar to the United States of
America. The power of the Parliament or for that
matter, the State Legislatures is restricted in two ways.
A law made by the Parliament or the Legislature can
be struck down by Courts on two grounds and two
grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence
and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights
guaranteed in Part-III of the constitution or of any
other constitutional provision. There is no third
ground. We do not wish to enter into a discussion of
the concepts of procedural unreasonableness and
substantive unreasonableness – concepts inspired by
the decisions of United States Supreme Court. Even in
U.S.A., these concepts and in particular the concept of
substantive due process have proved to be of unending
controversy, the latest thinking tending towards a
severe curtailment of this ground (substantive due
process). The main criticism against the ground of
38W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533substantive due process being that it seeks to set up
the courts as arbiters of the wisdom of the Legislature
in enacting the particular piece of legislation. It is
enough for us to say that by whatever name it is
characterised, the ground of invalidation must fall
within the four corners of the two grounds mentioned
above. In other words, say, if an enactment is
challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck
down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality
clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein.
Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of
any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Clauses
(a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only
if it is found not saved by any of the Clauses (2) to (6)
of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck
down by just saying that it is arbitrary or
unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity
has to be found before invalidating an Act. An
enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that
Court thinks it unjustified. The Parliament and the
Legislatures, composed as they are of the
representatives of the people, are supposed to know
and be aware of the needs of the people and what is
good and bad for them. The Court cannot sit in
judgment over their wisdom.”
(Underlining supplied)
39
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
Thus, it is settled principle of law that this Court can strike down
an enactment only on the grounds of lack of legislative
competence, violation of fundamental rights or any of the
constitutional provisions. It has been emphatically laid down by
the Apex Court that “there is no third ground” for striking down
a law enacted by the Legislature. As already found, there is no
legislative incompetence – with respect to the provisions of Entry
6 to List II of the Seventh Schedule or the provisions of Article
252. The petitioners have not pointed out any violation of the
Constitutional provisions or violation of fundamental rights in
support of the above contention.
18. True, the petitioners have contended that the
Legislation in question provides for unbridled and arbitrary
powers on the statutory authorities. In this connection, apart
from the submission made to that effect, none of the petitioners
has relied on any actual unreasonable actions/steps taken
against them. Apart from this, as held by the Apex Court again
40
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
in Rajbala and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
[(2016) 2 SCC 445], an enactment cannot be struck down
merely on account of the alleged unreasonableness/
arbitrariness.
19. This Court also notices that under Article 47 of the
Constitution of India, it is the duty of the State to raise the
standard of living and to improve public health. In State of
Punjab and Others v. Mohinder Singh Chawla [(1997) 2
SCC 83) it has been categorically found by the Apex Court that
“Right to health is integral to right to life” and that “Government
has constitutional obligation to provide health facilities”.
20. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram and
Others [(2005) 7 SCC 1] has found as under: –
“39. In recent times the self regulatory standards in the
profession have shown a decline and this can be
attributed to the overwhelming impact of
commercialisation of the sector. There are reports
against doctors of exploitative medical practices, misuse
of diagnostic procedures, brokering deals for sale of
41W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533human organs, etc. It cannot be denied that black sheep
have entered the profession and that the profession has
been unable to isolate them effectively. The need for
external regulation to supplement professional self
regulation is constantly growing. The high costs and
investments involved in the delivery of medical care have
made it an entrepreneurial activity wherein the
professionals look to reaping maximum returns on such
investment. Medical practice has always had a place of
honour in society; currently the balance between service
and business is shifting disturbingly towards business
and this calls for improved and effective regulation,
whether internal or external. There is need for
introspection by doctors – individually and collectively.
They must rise to the occasion and enforce discipline and
high standards in the profession by assuming an active
role.”
(Underlining supplied)
The findings by the Apex Court in the afore paragraph, in my
opinion, strikes at the root of the contentions raised by the
petitioners in these writ petitions. This Court also notices that
challenge against the vires of similar enactments made by some
other States have also been turned down by the respective High
42
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
Courts as Under:
i. Dr. Ramneek Singh Bedi and another v. Union
of India and Others [2011 Supreme (P&H)
1462].
ii. Dr. Yashbir Singh Tomar and Others. v. State
of Uttarakhand and Others [2017 Supreme
(UK) 302].
iii. Madhukar Dwivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh and
Others [2018 KHC 2483].
iv. Md. Rezaul Karim and Others v. State of West
Bengal and Others [2018 KHC 2011].
v. D. Dharmabalan v. Secretary of Health and
Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai and Others [(2019) SCC OnLine Mad
39250].
I am of the opinion that the challenge against the
constitutionality of the Act in question is, therefore, only to be
43
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
rejected, and I do so.
21. The third issue arising for consideration is with
reference to the provisions under Chapter IX of the impugned
statute. Section 39 thereunder reads as follows: –
“Display of the certificate of registration and other
information by the clinical establishment. –
(1) Every clinical establishment shall display, in a
conspicuous place in the clinical establishment its
certificate of registration, provisional or permanent.
(2) Every clinical establishment shall display, in a
conspicuous place in the clinical establishment in
Malayalam as well as in English the fee rate and package
rate charged for each type of service provided and
facilities available, for the information of the patients.
(3) All clinical establishments in the State shall display
package rates for specific procedures.
(4) No clinical establishment shall charge fees or package
rates more than what is displayed.”
It is the contention raised by the petitioners that every clinical
establishment is to mandatorily display the “fee rate” and
“package rate” with respect to the services provided and the
44
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
facilities available, including the procedures, and that no clinical
establishment is to charge fee/package rates more than what is
displayed. The learned counsel contend that the statute is silent
as to what is “fee rate” and “package rate,” and hence the
provisions have to be struck down as unenforceable.
22. However, this Court notices that the Apex Court as
well as this Court have already issued appropriate directions to
enforce the provisions of the Central Act and the State Act,
respectively, as under.
23. The Apex Court as per order dated 27.02.2024 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No.648 of 2020 noticing the submission made
from the side of the Union of India that unless there is response
from the States, fixation of rates cannot be carried out, directed
the Secretary, Department of Health, Union of India to hold a
meeting with its counter parts in the State Governments/Union
Territories and to come up with a concrete proposal. Similarly, a
Division Bench of this Court in Sabu P. Joseph (Adv.) v. State
45
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
of Kerala and Others [2021 (4) KHC 225] has already
directed every private hospital in the State to display rates and
fees of the service given to the public as required under Section
39 of the Act read along with Rule 19 of the Rules. In the light of
the afore, the petitioners are not entitled to raise any challenge
with reference to Section 39, as noticed above. This is all the
more so, since the petitioner in W.P(C)No.1365 of 2019 (Kerala
Private Hospitals Association) and the petitioner in W.P(C)
No.29353 of 2019 (Indian Medical Association) were the
additional 5th and the 9th respondents respectively before the
Division Bench of this Court and it is after hearing them also, that
the Division Bench issued the directions as above.
24. The fourth issue arising for consideration is with
reference to the unbridled powers of the authorities under
statute, as regards the suspension/cancellation of the
registration. It is the contention raised by the petitioners that the
provisions of Section 14(3) of the Act provides for
46
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
cancellation/suspension of registration when there is “imminent
danger to public health” without defining what is “imminent
danger”. They contend that on account of the afore, uncanalised
powers are vested on the statutory Authority for the cancellation
of registration. However, this Court notices that Section 14,
falling under Chapter IV, provides only the “Authority for
registration”. Sub-section (1) thereto provides for the
constitution of the Authority in the manner prescribed therein,
sub-section (3) only lays down the “functions” of the Authority
and also provides for cancelling the registration. Sub-section (3);
under clause (a) speaks about granting/
renewal/suspension/cancellation of registration. However, the
power for registration/cancellation is not laid down under Section
14(3) as contended. Registration is provided by virtue of Section
15 (conditions for registration), Section 16 (registration of
clinical establishments), Section 17 (application for provisional
registration), Section 18 (validity of provisional registration),
47
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
Section 19 (application for permanent registration), etc.
Cancellation, on the other hand, is prescribed under Section 25,
which reads as follows: –
“25. Cancellation of registration-
(1) If, at any time, after any clinical establishment has been
registered, the Authority or the Council is satisfied that,-
(a) the conditions of the registration are not complied with;
or
(b) the clinical establishment has knowingly or negligently
carried out an act that is harmful to the health of the
person seeking care from the clinical establishment, it
may issue notice to the clinical establishment to show
cause why its registration should not be cancelled for the
reasons to be mentioned in the notice.
(2) Where the Authority or Council is satisfied, after giving a
reasonable opportunity to the clinical establishment to
be heard, that there has been a breach of any of the
provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, it
may, without prejudice to any other action that may be
taken against such clinical establishment, by order
cancel its registration.
(3) Every order made under sub-section (2) shall take effect,-
(i) where no appeal has been preferred against such
order immediately on the expiry of the period prescribed
48W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533for such appeal;
and
(ii) where such appeal has been preferred and it has been
dismissed, from the date of the order of such dismissal:
Provided that the Authority, after cancellation of
registration, for reasons to be recorded in writing, shall
restrain immediately the clinical establishment from
functioning, if there is imminent danger to the health and
safety of patients.”
A reading of the afore would show that the cancellation of
registration is not merely for the asking, as portrayed by the
petitioners. The Authority has to arrive at a satisfaction that: –
i. The conditions of registration are not complied with,
ii. Clinical establishments have knowingly or negligently
carried out an act that is harmful to a person seeking
treatment.
Furthermore, the provision does not provide for an automatic
cancellation. It provides for the issuance of a show cause notice
to a clinical establishment, granting of a reasonable opportunity
of hearing, etc., prior to the actual cancellation of the
49W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533registration. Sub-section (3) also provides that cancellation shall
take effect if no appeal is preferred against the cancellation order
within the period prescribed for filing the appeal, and in case an
appeal is preferred, when the appeal has been dismissed. Again,
sub-section (3) to Section 25 also takes care of the contentions
raised by some of the petitioners that, on account of the
cancellation, the hospital would have to throw out the patients.
True, the proviso thereto entitles the Authority to restrain the
hospital from functioning, immediately in the event of there
being an imminent danger to the health and safety of patients.
The afore power vested in the Authority under the proviso also
cannot be said to be unconstitutional or arbitrary, insofar as it is
only on recording of reasons in writing, such a power can be
exercised. In other words, so as to invoke the proviso to sub-
section (3), the extraordinary circumstances have to be found
and reduced to writing.
50
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
25. Therefore, in my opinion, utmost care has been taken
while conferring power for the cancellation of registration on the
Authority. This Court further notices that under Chapter VII, an
Appellate Authority under Section 34 and a revision to this Court
under Section 35 have also been provided. Therefore, I am of
the opinion that there is no uncanalised power bestowed on the
Authority with respect to the cancellation of registration.
26. This Court also notices that it is not the mere ipse dixit,
without any supporting reason, that attracts the rigours of
Section 25. The provision makes this clear by the usage of the
expression “satisfied”. Therefore, “satisfaction” of the Authority
is a condition precedent for cancellation under Section 25. It is
not as if the Authority can cancel registration at its will. This
Court notices the following observation made by Lord Denning in
Secretary of State for Education and Science v.
Metropolitan Borough of Tameside [[1976] 3 All ER 665
(CA)],
51
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
“To my mind, if a statute gives a Minister power to take
drastic action if he is satisfied that a local authority have
acted or are proposing to act improperly or
unreasonably, then the Minister should obey all the
elementary rules of fairness before he finds that the
local authority are guilty or before he takes drastic
action overruling them. He should give the party
affected notice of the charge of impropriety or
unreasonableness and a fair opportunity of dealing with
it. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State did so in
this case. He had before him the written proposals of
the new council and he met their leaders. In addition,
however, the Minister must direct himself properly in
law. He must call his own attention to the matters he is
bound to consider. He must exclude from his
consideration matters which are irrelevant to that which
he has to consider. And the decision to which he comes
must be one which is reasonable in this sense, that it is,
or can be, supported with good reasons or at any rate
be a decision which a reasonable person might
reasonably reach. Such is, I think, plain from Padfield v
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is a
landmark in our administrative law and which we had in
mind in Secretary of State for Employment v Associated
Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (No 2).
So much for the requirements if the Minister is to be
52
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
‘satisfied”.”
In the light of the afore, it goes without saying that unless the
cancellation is proved and supported with material facts and
figures, the same is subject to judicial review. However, that
cannot be a reason to contend that excessive powers are
bestowed on the statutory Authority. To the same effect is the
judgment of our Apex Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. and
another v. Company Law Board and others [AIR 1967 SC
295].
27. The fifth issue arising for consideration is with
reference to the contention raised by Sri. Poonthotam, on behalf
of the Indian Dental Association, regarding Section 3 of the Act.
Section 3 provides for the “establishment of the State Council”.
According to him, Section 3(2)(j)(i) provides for the inclusion of
“one representative from welfare organisations of the patients in
the State”. Similar inclusion is also made with reference to the
constitution of the “Executive Committee” under Section 8 and it
53
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
is contended that since the Council and the Committee are expert
bodies, the inclusion as above is quite illegal and arbitrary. This
Court is not in a position to accept the afore contention insofar
as the State Council and Executive Committee visualise
inclusiveness by providing for representation from the side of
patients also, however, to be nominated by the Government from
various welfare organisations. This Court further notices that
representatives from the side of some of the petitioners, like the
Indian Dental Association and the Indian Medical Association, are
included in the constitution of the State Council. When the State
Council can include representatives from the side of the service
providers, like petitioners herein, it goes without saying that
service recipients should also be included in the
Council/Committee. Therefore, the contention with reference to
the constitution of the State Council and the Executive
Committee is only to be recorded and rejected.
28. The last question arising for consideration is with
54
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
reference to the contentions raised in the writ petition filed by
individual dentists regarding the inclusion of “dentistry” in the
impugned Act. The contentions raised are essentially to the effect
that “dentistry” cannot be equated with “public health and
sanitation” as well as “hospitals and dispensaries,” and hence,
the inclusion of dentistry in the impugned enactment is without
legislative competence.
29. The Act in question under Section 2(j) defines the
“recognised system of medicine” as under: –
“(j)”recognised system of medicine” means Modern
Medicine (including dentistry), Naturopathy, Ayurveda,
Homoeopathy, Sidha and Unani systems of medicine or
any other system of medicine recognised by the
Government;”
True, the Central Act under Section 2(h) defines “recognised
system of medicine” as under: –
“(h) “recognised system of medicine” means Allopathy,
Yoga, Naturopathy, Ayurveda, Homoeopathy, Siddha
and Unani System of medicines or any other system of
medicine as may be recognised by the Central
55W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533Government;”
Therefore, on a cursory reading of the definitions, it may give the
idea that the Central Act does not cover “dentistry,” whereas it
covers “Allopathy.”
30. However, it is to be straight away noticed that the
legislative competence of the State Legislature to legislate on
“public health and sanitation” on the basis of which the Act in
question is enacted has been separately considered and found in
favour of the State. When that be so, it goes without saying that
the State Legislature is competent to enact the statute in
question with reference to “recognised system of medicine” by
defining the said term.
31. This Court is also of the opinion that “recognised
system of medicine” is defined to mean “modern medicine” which
would also include “dentistry”. The term “medicine” not being
defined under the statute, it is worthwhile to refer to the
definition of the said term as available in Corpus Juris Secundum,
56
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
Volume 70, which reads as under: –
“”Medicine” means a science or profession indicating an art
of healing or science which has for its province the
treatment of diseases generally,
The practice of medicine, as ordinarily or popularly
understood, has relation to the art of pre-venting, curing, or
alleviating disease or pain. It includes the diagnosing,
treating, operating, or prescribing for any human disease,
pain, injury, deformity, or physical condition. It also includes
the application and use of medicines and drugs for the
purpose of curing, mitigating, or alleviating bodily diseases,
but it does not wholly depend on the administration of
drugs.
It may be said to consist in three things: in judging the
nature, character, and symptoms of the disease, in
determining the proper remedy for the disease, and in
giving or prescribing the application of the remedy to the
disease.”
Thus, the art of preventing/curing/ alleviating disease or pain
through diagnosis, treatment, operation, etc., amounts to the
practice of medicine. Dentistry is only a specialisation in the
practice of medicine, like orthopaedics, obstetrics, etc. In Corpus
Juris Secundum, Volume 70, the term “dentistry” is defined as
57
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
under: –
“”Dentistry” is a special department of medical science
embracing the structure, function, and therapeutics of
the mouth and contained organs, specifically the teeth,
with their surgical and prosthetic treatment. The
practice of dentistry includes treating pain of the human
teeth, oral cavity, alveolar process, gums, or jaws, and
supplying artificial teeth as substitutes for natural ones,
and taking impressions of the teeth and jaws.”
(Underlining supplied)
Therefore, the fact that dentistry is only a specialised
department of medical science is also beyond doubt.
32. Reference may also be made to the definition of the
word “dentistry” from Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 7, to the
following effect: –
“Dentistry is the healing art concerned with the health of the
mouth, especially the teeth. It is also the profession
practising this art.”
This Court also notices the definition of the term dentistry in
Taber’s Cyclopaedic Medical Dictionary, 21st Edition, which reads
as follows: –
58
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
“The branch of medicine dealing with the care of the teeth
and associated structures of the oral cavity. It is concerned
with the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases of
the teeth and gums.”
From all the above, it is quite clear that dentistry is part of
“modern medicine”, and it is made clear through the definition of
dentistry under Section 2(j) of the Act. Assuming for a moment
that dentistry is not covered under the Central Act, nothing
prevents the State Legislature from including “dentistry” with
reference to the definition of the term “recognised system of
medicine” under the State Act.
33. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the inclusion of
“dentistry” under section 2(j) of the impugned Act cannot be
found fault with, as one made without legislative competence.
34. Some broad contentions with reference to the non-
issuance of notification under Section 4(1)(g), impossibility to
comply with provisions of Section 47 dealing with treatment in
emergencies, non-inclusion of medical colleges under Section
59
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
2(c), etc., are also raised by some of the petitioners. As regards
the non-issuance of notification under Section 4(1)(g), the issue
would arise for consideration only when appropriate steps have
been taken against the clinical establishments, with reference to
the factual position. Similarly, the provisions of Section 47 and
the impossibility pointed out would arise with reference to the
penal provisions under Chapter V. As already noticed, the Act
does not provide for an automatic penal action. Again, medical
colleges do not require a specific inclusion in the definition of the
term “clinical establishment”. The violation of privacy, etc., have
also been raised, which do not arise for consideration in these
writ petitions insofar as the lack of legislative competence is
being primarily raised in these writ petitions.
35. At this juncture, this Court takes notice of the
submissions made by S/Sri.Kannamthanam, Mather as well as
Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel that there are certain
practical difficulties faced by the clinical establishments on
60
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
account of the implementation of the provisions of the Act and
Rules. Many of the practical difficulties pointed out by the
respective senior counsel have been noticed in paragraphs 6,7,
and 8 of this judgment. Though, I have held that merely on
account of the arbitrariness of a statute, the same do not require
to be declared unconstitutional, I am of the opinion that liberty
is to be granted to the petitioners to point out the practical
difficulties faced by them before the Government and it is for the
Government to consider the practical difficulties to be pointed out
by the petitioners and to adopt such remedial measures, which
it deems fit, in totality of the interest of clinical establishments
as well as the beneficiaries of the statute in question.
Subject to the afore liberty granted to the petitioners
herein, these writ petitions would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
61
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2870/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION
BEARING G.O.(P) NO.11/2023/H&FWD DATED
11.03.2023 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE ON
20.04.2023 PRESCRIBING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR
THE CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN KERALA.2870
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.2225/2019/H AND
FWD DATED 07.09.2019
EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON
31.05.2023.
62
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2637/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED
7.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE FIRST
PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF KERALA CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS
REGISTRATION AND REGULARIZATION ACT 2018 DATED
22.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO. 3116
G.O. (P) NO. 156/2018/ H & FWD DATED 10.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO. 3262
(G.O.(P) 159/2018. H & FWD DATED 26.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 162/2018/H & FWD DATED
31.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 161/2018/H & FWD DATED
31.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN INDIAN
EXPRESS DATED 28.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO. 1365 OF 2019
DATED 16.1.2019.
63
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27168/2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS
(REGISTRATION AND REGULATION) ACT, 2018 [ACT 2
OF 2018] DATED 22.02.2018.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS
(REGISTRATION AND REGULATION) RULES, 2018 DATED
26.12.2018
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE
COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR FILLING UP OF ONLINE
PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION APPLICATION DATED 1ST
JANUARY 2019.
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING
G.O.(P)NO.156/2018/ H&FWD DATED 10.12.2018
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS
(REGISTRATION AND REGULATION) AMENDMENT ACT
2021 [ACT 35 OF 2021] PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE
BEARING NOTIFICATION NO.13434/ LEG.H1/2020/LAW
DATED 14TH NOVEMBER 2021.
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS
(REGISTRATION AND REGULATION) AMENDMENT ACT
2022 [ACT 8 OF 2023] PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE
BEARING NOTIFICATION NO. LEG.H1/126/2022/LAW.
DATED 6TH JANUARY 2023.
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFICATION BEARING G.O.(P)NO.11/2023/H&FWD
DATED 11TH MARCH 2023 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA
GAZETTE ON 20.04.2023
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.2/2019/H AND FWD
DATED 16.01.2019.
64
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2022 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE COUNCIL
FOR CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.05.2023
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE
COUNCIL FOR CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.664/2021/H AND FWD
DATED 15.03.2021.
EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.70/2022/FIN DATED
23.06.2022 ALONG WITH THE SCHEME OF MEDISEP
65W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.29353/2019
PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS
(REGISTRATION AND REGULATION) ACT, 2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS
(REGISTRATION AND REGULATION) RULES, 2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE
COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR FILLING UP OF ONLINE
PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN
THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF
MINISTER ON 1.8.2022.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION – IMA
KSB/SS/HQ/119/2023-24 DATED 23.1.2024
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF
KERALA.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 54/2019/H AND FWD
DATED 11.6.2019 PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
GAZETTE ON 13.6.2019.
EXHIBIT R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS (MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR MODERN
MEDICINE, DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, MEDICAL
LABORATORY, DENTAL) RULES OF 2023.
EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 2/2019/H AND FWD
DATED 16.1.2019.
66
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533 EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2022 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE COUNCIL
FOR CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 02.05.2023
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE
COUNCIL FOR CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10.05.2023
ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KERALA STATE
COUNCIL FOR CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENTS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 664/2021/H AND
FWD DATED 15.3.2021.
EXHIBIT R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO. 70/2022/FIN DATED
23.6.2022 ALONG WITH THE SCHEME OF MEDISEP.
67
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41738/2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS (REGISTRATION AND REGULATION)
ACT, 2018.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.156/2018/H&FWD
DATED 10-12-2018, ISSUED AS SRO NO.884 OF 2018
AND PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS (REGISTRATION AND REGULATION)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 (35 OF 2021) PUBLISHED IN
KERALA GAZETTE ON 14-11-2021.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS (REGISTRATION AND REGULATION)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022 (8 OF 2023) PUBLISHED IN
KERALA GAZETTE ON 6-1-2023.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA STATE MEDICAL
PRACTITIONERS ACT, 2021.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS (REGISTRATION AND REGULATION)
RULES, 2018.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CLINICAL
ESTABLISHMENTS (MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS FOR
MODERN MEDICINE, DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE, MEDICAL
LABORATORY AND DENTAL) RULES, 2023 AND
PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE AS GO(P)
NO.11/2023/ H&FWD DATED 11-3-2023.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA (CODE
OF ETHICS) REGULATIONS, 2014.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.1/2022/HEALTH DATED
1-1-2022 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
.
68
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.
2984/2023/H&FWD DATED 10-11-2023 ISSUED BY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
69
W.P(C) No.1365 of 2019
and con.cases 2025:KER:44533
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO.1365/2019
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22.02.2018 OF
LAW (LEGISLATION-H) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.12.2018
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RULES DATED 26.12.2018 PUBLISHED
BY THE GAZETTE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.12.2018
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.12.2018 OF
THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (FW) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 31.12.2018 OF
THE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (FW) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT DATED
28.12.2018 APPEARED IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS.
RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R21(A) TRUE COPY OF SAFE TO HOST CERTIFICATE DATED
24.11.2023.