Dr. Vinod Bhaskar Rao Joshi, the petitioner, operates a physiotherapy and pain clinic under the trademark “Pushkar Pain Clinic Evam Physiotherapy Center.” The petitioner alleges that an individual named Trivendra Kumar Kaushik is illegally running a physiotherapy center under the guise of medical practice, claiming to possess a degree in Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) from an unverified and possibly fraudulent institution. This person is accused of misrepresenting, infringing the petitioner’s registered trademark, and providing illegal medical services.
The petitioner had submitted a complaint to the relevant licensing authority under Madhya Pradesh law, seeking cancellation of the license issued to the unauthorized person and action under applicable statutes. Despite this, no action has been taken to revoke or scrutinize the license, leading the petitioner to approach the court for intervention.
Procedural Details:
-
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking:
-
A mandamus to direct the Respondent No.2 (the licensing authority) to decide and act upon the pending complaint.
-
Cancellation of the unauthorized person’s license if investigations reveal misconduct.
-
Disclosure of investigation findings and records related to the complaint.
-
The respondent (state authority) raised preliminary objections, asserting the petitioner’s status as a complainant, not an adversarial litigant, and citing landmark case law (notably Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector) that restricts the locus standi of complainants in such matters.
-
The court examined submissions from both sides, referencing precedents that clarify the limitations on a complainant’s capacity, emphasizing that the petitioner cannot act as an adversarial litigant seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directly to resolve a licensing or criminal matter.
Issues:
- Maintainability and locus standi: Whether the petitioner, as a complainant, has the legal standing to seek issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the authority to act or revoke licenses?
- Legal remedy applicability: Whether the petitioner’s grievance involves rights inhering to him or is merely a representation that the authorities are obliged to consider within their jurisdiction.
- Appropriate jurisdiction: Whether the court can intervene in licensing matters or if the matter needs to be resolved through administrative or civil remedies.
Decision:
The Hon’ble Court observed that:
- The petitioner is essentially a complainant who has submitted allegations but cannot act as a party to a dispute or a litigant seeking a writ directly against the licensing authority.
- As per judicial precedents (notably Ravi Yashwant Bhoir and Ayub Khan Noorkhan Pathan), a complainant’s role is limited to providing evidence or information; he cannot act as an adversarial party in a legal contest.
- The court emphasized that decisions regarding license cancellation or criminal action are within the domain of the licensing authority and the respective criminal courts, not the writ jurisdiction of the High Court unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or procedural irregularity.
Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner’s request for direct judicial intervention in license cancellation or investigation is not maintainable through the writ petition.
