Central Government has no power to appoint a team of medical inspectors for Homoeopathy Colleges : Supreme Court

Only Central Council of Homeopathy can appoint Inspectors for Homeopathy Colleges: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in The Temple Of Hanemann Homoeopathic Medical College And Hospital vs.  Union of India, has held that Central Government has no power to appoint a team of medical inspectors for the purpose of inspection of homeo colleges etc., as power of such appointment is conferred only on Central Council For Homeopathy (CCH) by the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973.

A bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice S Abdul Nazeer set aside a judgment of division bench of Patna High Court that held that the Central Government has the power to appoint a team of inspectors in order to grant permission and to approve the particular scheme. The division bench had reversed the single bench judgment, which has now been restored by the apex court.

The bench observed that under Section 17 of the Act, duty has been enjoined upon the CCH to appoint a team of inspectors. “Such a power has been specifically conferred on such Expert Bodies under various enactments also. It is the function of the expert bodies in the field and they are supposed to appoint a team of Inspectors and it is for expert bodies to make the recommendations to the Central Government. The role of the Central Government is a supervisory one and not to start an investigation by making the appointment of a team of Inspectors, as that is not envisaged under the Act of 1973 itself,” the court said.

The court also held that only the Central Council which is empowered to appoint a team of inspectors under Section 17 and visitors for the examination under Section 18 for making recommendation to the Central Government on the basis of report submitted 15 by the team of inspectors or visitors as envisaged under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.

On Regulation 3(5), the bench said: “The provision only confers power on Central Government and CCH that inspection be ordered in the aforesaid period in case exigency happens i.e. random checks, on receipt of any complaint, or otherwise as may be considered necessary. The regulation does not deal with who will inspect and who will appoint a team of medical inspectors that is dealt with in S.17 of the Act of 1973.”

Interpreting Regulation 3(5) harmoniously with Section 17 of the Act, the bench observed: “Though Central Government on a complaint or otherwise, as contemplated under Regulation 3(5) of the Regulations, 2013 may cause inspection would mean only that inspection to be made by a team to be appointed by CCH. A team of inspectors or visitors as the case may be, can be appointed by CCH under Section 17 or 18 of the Act. However, after an inspection is made, action has to be taken on the basis of the report as provided under the Act and the Regulations by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendation made by the CCH.”

http://www.livelaw.in/

Download judgement copy 

Facebook Comments

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


five + sixteen =