APHC010559002018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1969/2018 Between: 1. DR.K.KRANTHI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC DENTIST, R/O 3-6- 130, RAMAKRISHNAPURAM, NAIDUPET, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. DR SABVASACHI SAHA, SECRETARY, DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, KOTLA ROAD, TEMPLE LANE, NEW DELHI-110002. 2. DR T MURALI MOHAN, SECRETARY, ANDRHA PRADESH STATE DENTAL COUNCIL, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. A.P. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the respondents under the provisions of contempt of courts Act for willful violation of the orders of this Hon'ble court passed in I.A.No. 3 of 2018 in WP No.11412 of 2018 dated 23-4-2018, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K R SRIKANTH 2 Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. - 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1969/2018 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 23.04.2018 passed by this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2018 in W.P.No.11412 of 2018. 2. None appeared for the petitioner and the respondents. . 3. When the matter is taken up, it is observed that the petitioner herein completed his post graduation in Dental Surgery (MDS- Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry) in the year 2015 from SRM University, Tamilnadu and he started his practice at Naidupet, SPSR Nellore District in the year 2016. While so, respondent Nos.12 and 13 in the writ petition who are husband and wife have been practicing in Naidupet by establishing 11th respondent clinic at Naidupet by obtaining registration certificate from respondent No.6 under the Andhra Pradesh Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002 which is valid from 13.05.2011 to 12.05.2016. The said certificate expired on 12.05.2016. Even though the said certificate was expired, the respondent Nos. 12 and 13 have been continuing to run their clinic without valid permission/ renewal of license. It is also contended that respondent No. 12 completed his post graduation in dental surgery with the specialization “Periodontology” during the years 2012-2015 from Jairpur 4 Dental College, Jaipur. It is further observed that respondent No.12 pursued MDS course in the state of Rajasthan while simultaneously continuing his private practice in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Similarly, respondent No.13 obtained degree of Master in Dental Surgery in the year, 2016 from Gujarat University, while she had been continued her private practice at Nadiupet, Andhra Pradesh. Aggrieved by the same, one third party, the petitioner herein filed the writ petition against the official respondents for not initiating any action against the subject hospital and not withdrawn the license to the hospital for that period and no action against respondent Nos. 12 and 13 who are practicing as doctors while pursuing PG degrees at various universities which is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner herein also submitted a representation to the authorities concerned for redressal of the same. But the said representation was not at all considered by the official respondents. 4. At the time of admission and after hearing the matter, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass an interim order, which reads as follows: “Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that there is no representation submitted by the petitioner to the respondent 2 and 3 requesting to initiate action against the respondent Nos. 12 and 13 and that though some representations were given there is no proof showing that such representations are duly served on the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He, therefore, seeks to reserve liberty to the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition, to submit representation to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 5 Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit fresh representation to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with supporting documents, if any. In the even the petitioner submits any such representation, it is needless to state that the said respondents shall consider and dispose of the same, within a reasonable time.” 5. But the said interim was not complied with against which the present contempt case has been filed. But, pending contempt case, the respondent Nos. 12 and 13 completed their PG course and the license granted to the hospital was also expired and not renewed. While so, no cause is survives to enforce the cause at writ petition and accordingly the writ petition itself stands dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition and since the interim order is only for consideration of the representation of the petitioner, pending interim orders license was expired, as such no further orders are necessary due to closure of the hospital. Therefore, in view of the reasons as stated above, the present contempt case cannot be enforced and liable to be closed. 7. Accordingly, the present Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 10.03.2026 BSP 6 53 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1969/2018 10.03.2026 BSP