REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Md. Rezaul Karim Appellant

V/S

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DR. SOU JAYSHREE UJWAL INGOLE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. R M D CHI MARBAUGWALA ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MYSORE INTERVENER [REFERRED TO]
HAMDARD DAWAKHANA KALIPADA DEB LAKSHMAN SHRIPATI LTPURE ALIAS LAKSHMAN SHRI PATI IMPORE A B CHOUDHRI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ATIABARI TEA CO LIMITED KHAYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED H P BARUA HASIMARA TEA COMPANY LIMITED MOABUND TEA COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
AJAY HASIA VS. KHAUID MUJIB SEHRAVARDI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. SACHCHIDANAND KISHORE PRASAD SINHA [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION VS. V P SHANTHA [REFERRED TO]
HARBILAS RAI BANSAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
TMA PAI FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM INGOTS AND ALLOYS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SHIV RAM [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. JAI PRAKASH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL VS. UGRASEN [REFERRED TO]
K T PLANTATION PVT LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. K SHYAM SUNDER [REFERRED TO]
A P DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. B NARASIMHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
NAMIT SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SAYYED RATANBHAI SAYEED (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. VS. SHIRDI NAGAR PANCHAYAT & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
MODERN DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the vires of West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, various provisions of the Act of 2017 fail the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Sections 2(c)(ii), 7(3)(i), 7(3)(l) to (t), 7(3)(p), 7(3)(s), 27, 29, 30, 33(1), 33(2), 36, 38(1)(iii), 38(1)(ix) and Section 42 of the Act of 2017 in this regard. He has submitted that, the various provisions of the Act of 2017 are arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational. They infringe upon the fundamental right to practice one's profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Referring to Section 2(c) of the Act of 2017, Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, the 2nd explanation to the definition of 'clinical establishment' allows an individual medical practitioner to be treated as operating in any establishment within the meaning of the Act of 2017, in the event, such individual medical practitioner, in the discharge of his duties and attending to his patients, require a medicine to be administered to the patient visiting his chamber in view of the emergent medical condition of such patient.

Click here to view full judgment.

MD. REZAUL KARIM Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address