Calcutta High Court orders inquiry into "fake" doctor but imposes ₹10k costs on brother who filed PIL against him

A plea in the Calcutta High Court concerning fake doctors in West Bengal took an interesting turn, when the person accused of being a "fake" doctor divulged that the plea was filed by none other than his own brother and possibly because he lost a civil suit between them. [Debarata Chakraborti v. State of West Bengal and ors].The petitioner's counsel had told the Court that the doctor had opened a clinic in Hooghly and that he had been conducting surgeries and issuing death certificates, despite not having requisite qualification or registration with a medical council. .The lawyer added that it also came to light that the doctor was not registered with the Homeopathic Council in West Bengal."Health sector happens to be the most easiest way for money-making ... There are several deaths that have occurred in his hands", the lawyer said. The doctor's counsel, meanwhile, maintained that he was a Unani practitioner and that he had not overstepped any legal rule. He added that he graduated from a homeopathic course in Nagaland. The Court, however, agreed with the counsel appearing for the West Bengal Homeopathic Council that no one can practice homeopathy in the State without registering with the council. "You (tell your client to) go to Nagaland, if he (doctor) doesn't go to Nagaland, we will arrest him today. Unless you are registered within the State of West Bengal, you cannot practice any system of medicine (in West Bengal)!" the Court orally observed. .Taking a serious view of the matter, the bench led by Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam also ordered the State Health Department to nominate a senior officer to examine the credentials the doctor and see if he is entitled to practice any form of medicine. The petitioner's counsel, meanwhile, urged the Court to restrain the doctor from practicing medicine in the meanwhile. .However, at this point, the doctor's counsel interjected to highlight that the public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the Court was filed without disclosing that the petitioner was the doctor's brother, who had earlier lost a civil suit against the doctor. "Milord, he is my brother, he lost in civil (suit), that's why he filed all this public interest litigation!" the doctor's counsel submitted. "Let's not prejudice the Court by saying all this," the petitioner's counsel replied."Is this correct? That you have filed a civil suit ...? " asked Chief Justice Sivagnanam."Yes, he is my brother. I have the copy. He is my own brother," the doctor's counsel reply. .The development led the Court to deprecate the PIL petitioner for his conduct in the order and impose ₹10,000 as costs on him, which is to be paid in two weeks to the State Legal Services Authority. "We find the petitioner is not a bonafide public interest litigant.. However, we have issued the above direction (for an inquiry) taking into consideration the health and the welfare of general public who should not be misled and cheated and be treated by a person who does not possess the requisite qualification. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner did not disclose two vital factors .... we impose a costs of ₹10,000 on the petitioner... ," the Court said. .With these directions, the matter was disposed of.