THE General Medical Council knew as far back as August, 2003, that Dr Dutt needed psychiatric supervision.
Yet it allowed him to continue running his own one-man practice in Fartown.
When Dr Dutt appeared before a disciplinary committee last November and was found guilty of serious professional misconduct
he was given a reprimand and allowed to carry on working.
No public mention was made about his need for supervision by a psychiatrist who would report back to the GMC.
Dr Dutt was found guilty of serious professional misconduct over applications he made to try to get passports for his two daughters.
They live with his wife and he is banned from speaking to them.
The GMC's Fitness To Practice Panel said it had found his actions "dishonest, misleading and unprofessional".
It was alleged he lied to the Passport Office when he applied for passports in his daughters' names, knowing they were on his wife's passport.
When they arrived, he told officials he'd only received one - so they sent him another.
But when they asked for all three back, he said he didn't have them and couldn't get access to them.
Dr Dutt was questioned at Huddersfield police station over the matter in June last year. His car was searched there and the three passports were found in it.
Dr Dutt and several witnesses gave evidence at the three-day GMC hearing in Manchester. He said the passport applications were made for him by a retired solicitor and friend.
A report from the panel said: "The panel has noted that at the time of these events you were suffering extreme domestic difficulties and were in the course of acrimonious divorce proceedings and were also a party to other domestic legal proceedings.
"They have noted that following the issue of a court order, you were required to move out of the family home in March, 2003, and were staying with friends, in hotels and, on occasions, in your car."
Dr Dutt has had no previous disciplinary hearings against him.
Witnesses said he was dedicated to his profession and held in high regard by patients, colleagues and friends.
But the panel told him: "Your conduct has fallen short of the standards of behaviour expected of a registered medical practitioner."
But it agreed to issue a reprimand, adding: "Your actions did not relate to your clinical work or cause direct or indirect patient harm."
A GMC spokeswoman said doctors did not have to tell the GMC about their involvement in county court cases unless it affected their fitness to practise.
She refused to say if any complaints had been made to the GMC about Dr Dutt.
She said continuing checks were not done on single-handed GPs unless they were subject to some form of restrictions.
