Doctrine Of Proportionality | Constitutional Courts Cannot Be Disproportionately Harsh To Arguable Guilts Of Litigants: Karnataka High Court

A division bench of Justice Krishna S.Dixit and Justice P.Krishna Bhat, sitting at Dhawad allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Yasin Khan and others challenging an order of the single judge bench which had by its order dated October 25, 2021, dismissed their petition seeking a direction on the basis of Section 5 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007.

The single judge bench dismissed the petition stating that the petitioners had suppressed information regarding filing of another petition and emergent notice having been issued by the court on the same cause of action.

The Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, opposed the appeals and said the writ jurisdiction is more equitable in nature, and therefore, persons knocking at the doors of the writ Court have to come with "clean hands, clean heads and clean hearts." Thus, having not happened, indulgence of the appellate Court is not warranted. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Udayami Rvam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Samsthe Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (1) SCC 560.

The bench on going through the single judge bench order said, "The above observations arguably may be true. However, they cannot constitute a sufficient ground for denying the innocuous relief sought for in the petitions."

Further it said, "It has been settled position of law that 'Doctrine of proportionality' now is a part of our legal system vide Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Vs. Comibatore District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Association & Another, (2007) 4 SCC 669."

It added, "Constitutional Courts cannot be harsh disproportionately to the arguable guilt of the litigants."

Following which it held, "Thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting indulgence of the appellate Court for setting the injustice at naught. In the above circumstances, these appeals succeed in part; the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge are set at naught; both the writ petitions are remanded for consideration afresh on merits, all contentions having been kept open."

Case Title: Dr Yasin Khan v. State of Karnataka and Others

Case No: WA NO. 100292/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 186

Date of Order: 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022

Appearance: Advocate PRAKASHA M for appellant; Advocate G.K. HIREGOUDAR for respondents