Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Rule 3(R) of the W.R.M.A (World Rural Medical Association),
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Rule 3(R) of the W.R.M.A (World Rural Medical Association),

    Illiyaz v. State Of Karnataka

    ORDER

    The petitioners claim that they are medical practitioners practicing in various forms of medical sciences, after successfully completing community Medical service i.e, CMS course examination and that they have been issued with CMS certificate under Rule 3(R) of the W.R.M.A (World Rural Medical Association), New Delhi, in order to promote primary health care programme in rural areas, under the World Health Organization directive/guidelines and that they have undergone required amount of training.

    2. Petitioners have submitted representations vide Annexures - C1 to C4, to grant permission to practice in rural areas. Finding no response, these writ petitions were filed, asking for a mandamus as against the respondents to consider the said representations.

    3. Sri. Devi Prasad Shetty, learned advocate submitted that the case of the petitioners is identical to the cases considered and decided by this Court, in the orders as at Annexures - E and E1 and these writ petitions may be disposed of accordingly.

    4. Sri. H.B Mahesh, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents submitted that, if Annexures - C1 to C4 have not been considered and decision taken and if reasonable time is granted, respondent No. 3 would consider the same and make known to the petitioners, the outcome. Submission made by Sri. H.B Mahesh, is recorded.

    5. There being no dispute with regard to submission of the representations vide Annexures - C1 to C4, respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the said representations, in case the same have not been considered and decision taken. If the decision has already been arrived at, the same be made known to the petitioners. Otherwise, the decision be taken within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order becomes available and make known to the petitioners, the Till then, the 3rd respondent is directed, that the practice of the petitioners be *not interfered with. The direction is issued, keeping in view the orders passed vide Annexures - E and E1, which have become final. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Illiyaz v. State Of Karnataka
    (Aug 5, 2014)