Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 22.02.2002 passed by a learned Judge of the Writ Court on the writ petition being W. P. No. 1297 of 2001. The said writ petition is still pending.
(2.) The writ petitioner Dr. Kunal Sana is also the appellant before us. The writ petitioner/appellant lodged a complaint before the West Bengal Medical Council (hereinafter called the 'Council'), the 1st respondent, and the said complaint was lodged against one Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, the 5th respondent. The substance of the complaint was that the wife of the appellant died on 28.05.1998 as a result of rash and negligent treatment of the 5th respondent followed by the treatment of other doctors. As the 5th respondent, a medical practitioner, is registered with the Council, appellant sent several representations to the Council inviting it to initiate disciplinary action against the 5th respondent. But as the Council and/or its officers were not taking any step, the appellant, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition (W. P. No. 2599 of 1999). The said writ petition was taken up by a learned Judge of this Court and after hearing the parties, the learned Judge, by an order dated 13.03.2000 finally disposed of that writ petition. In doing so the learned Judge directed the Council to dispose of the case of appellant, after giving him an opportunity of hearing, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of the order of the learned Judge and it was further directed that the Council should pass a speaking order. Pursuant to the said order, a notice was served upon the appellant to appear before the Council on 12.05.2000. It may be noted that in the said hearing before the Council the appellant wanted 3 leading experts in the world of Dermatology to give evidence for him. But, as those experts were heaving a busy schedule, it was not possible for them to appear in person before the committee of the Council at Calcutta. As such, the appellant requested his learned Advocate-on-Record to obtain the permission of the Council for a tele-conference. But, the same was declined by the authority of the Council. Against such order, the appellant filed another writ petition but the prayer of the appellant was also turned down by the Writ Court and the matter was ultimately settled by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the following order, which is set out: "SLP (C) No. 15292 of 2000. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The special leave petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that prior to fixing the date for video conference, respondent No. 1 would send expert's opinion and his own deposition to the West Bengal Medical Council within 15 days from today. Thereafter within 15 days video conference will take place on the date fixed by the petitioner Medical Council. The petitioner shall also communicate the date for such conference in advance to respondent No. 1. SLP (C) 16261/2000. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage in view of the order passed in SLP (C) No. 15292/2000. The special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed. However, at subsequent stage it would be open to the petitioner to approach the High Court for the same relief".
(3.) The case of the appellant is that the authorities of the Council on 01.03.2001 held a hearing on the complaint lodged by him against the 5th respondent. The appellant appeared before them and his oral testimony was recorded and the adjudication was complete on 01.03.2001. But, as the Council was sitting tight over the matter and no communication was made by the Council about its outcome, the instant writ petition was moved by the appellant with the following prayers : "(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondent authorities to pass a reasoned order of the hearing/adjudication/trial held on 1st March, 2001 of the complaint lodged by your petitioner before the respondent No. 1 against the respondent N. 5 and to communicate the same to your petitioner forthwith; (b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondent authorities to adhere to the direction given in the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 13th March, 2000 and in the light the Apex Court order dated September 28, 2000 by passing a reasoned order of the hearing/ adjudication/trial dated 1st March, 2001 and to communicate the same to your petitioner forthwith; (c) A writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued directing the respondent authorities to transmit all records in connection with the petitioner's case to this Hon'ble Court and after certifying and on perusal of the records conscionable justice may be administered by directing the respondent authorities to pass a reasoned order of the hearing/ adjudication/trial dated 1st March, 2001 and to communicate the same to your petitioner forthwith; (d) A writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the respondent authorities not to sit tight over the case of your petitioner and to pass a reasoned order of the hearing/adjudication/trial dated 1st March, 2001 and to communicate the same to your petitioner forthwith; (e) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) above; (f) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities to pass a reasoned order of the hearing/adjudication/trial dated 1st March, 2001 of the complaint lodged by your petitioner before the respondent No. 1 against the respondent No. 5 and to communicate the said order to your petitioner forthwith; (g) Ad interim order in terms of prayer (f)D above; (h) Such other or further order or orders as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.";