(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:
(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 :