Dismissed

Prakash Anant Gujar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2008WP/1898/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged action against him for practising without registration under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act and the Indian Medicine Central Council Act. The Court dismissed the writ petition holding that degrees awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan are not recognized medical qualifications.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no direction issued to respondents not to take action against petitioner.

Prakash Anant Gujar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1898 OF 2007

Dr. Prakash A. Gujar

..... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents

¶9

Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/b S.B. Deshmukh for Petitioner Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Additional Advocate General with Mr. A.S. Pai for State. Mr. Sagar G. Talekar with Shri R. Rodrigues for Respondent No. 3.

¶10

CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2008

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1)		The Petitio	ner has fil	ed this	Writ Petition
seeking	a dire	ction to	the	Respo	ndent Nos.	1	and	2 not
to	take	action	against	th	e Petitioner	either	under	the
provisions	of	Indian	Medic	ine	Central	Council	Act,	1970
or	under	the	Maharas	htra	Medical	Practiti	oners	Act,
1961	unless	any	authority		mentioned	under	the	aforesaid
Acts,	authorita	tively	decides		whether	the	Petitioner	is

¶13

entitled to practise medicine in the State of

¶14

Maharashtra or not.

¶15

2)	The P	etitioner	claimed that	he has d	egree in
Ayurweda	from	Hindi	Sahitya	Sa	mmelan,	Allaha	bad and	as
such he	is	entitled	to	practise	in	the	State	of
Maharashtra.	It	is	further	his	case	th	at he	is
registered	Medical		Practitioner	in	Bihar	in	terms	of
provisions	of	Bihar	Develop	ment	of Ayu	rved	and	Unani

¶16

¶17

Doctors belonging to the Ayurvedic stream of which the

¶18

Petitioner was a Member.

¶19

3)	Lea	rned Counsel	for the	Respondents	has drawn
our	attention to	the	Judgm	ent of	learned	Divis	ion Bench
of	this Court	in Writ	Petit	ion No.	7648	of 20	00. The
question	in	this	Writ	Petition	was	whether	degrees
granted	by	Hindi	Sahity	a Sa	mmelan	were	recognised
Medical	degrees in	terms	of	law or	not.	The	Court held
that	degrees	granted	by	Vaidya	Visharad	or	Ayurved
Ratna	awarded	by Hi	ndi	Sahitya	Sammelan	cannot	be held

¶20

to be medical qualification and as such the matter

¶21

stands concluded.

¶22

4)		The learned	Counsel fo	r Petiti	oner,	however
submits	that	the	submissi	ons	he	is	making presently
were	not	considered	in	earlier		petition.	Since the
Petitioner	was	also a	me	mber	of	Ass	ociation which filed
earlier	petition,	he may	not	be	e	ntitled	to make such a

¶23

submission, however in the interest of justice, we consider new submissions also.

¶24

5)		The first	submissio	n is t	hat Section 33	of the
Maharashtra	M	edical	Pra	ctitio	ners	Act, 1	961	is	not
applicable	to	the	Petition	er	and as	such	he	cannot	be
deprived	of	the	right	to	practise	because	he	is	not

¶25

registered under the Act. He relies on Section 1(3) of

¶26

the said Act which lays down :

¶27

¶28

"The whole Act (except Chapter VI) shall come into force on such date as the State Government may by Notification, in the Official Gazette appoint and Chapter VI shall come into operation, on such date (being the subsequent date) as that Government, by like Notification appoint".

¶29

6)		The Notifi	cation fo	r application of th	e Act,
except	Ch	apter VI,	was	issued on	23rd October 1961 and
the	Act	other	than	Chapter VI	became applicable from
21st O	ctober	1961.		Thereafter,	it appears that Chapter
VI	was	applied	by	virtue of	Notification dated 1st
September		1966.	Theref	ore, on	reading Section 1 as it
is,	it	becomes	clear	that Cha	pter VI became applicable
by	virtue	of	Notificat	ion dated	1st September 1966.
But	the	contention	of	the learn	ed Counsel is that
Section	3	3, which	is	part of	Chapter VI, has undergone
amendments		in the	year	1979 and	after amendments in
Section	33	, no	further	Notification	was issued. In
accordance		with S	ection	1, this	argument cannot be
accepted.		Chapter	VI	was applied	in the year 1966.
Section	33	stood	applie	d as after	Chapter VI became
applicable.		Therefore	any	amendme	nt made subsequent to
1966	in	Section	33	would	not be dependent on
Notification		of the	ap	plication in	terms of Section 1.
After	applic	ation of	S	ection-33,	amendments to Section-

¶30

33 would not render such amendments in applicable by

¶31

any rate of Interpretation.

¶32

¶33

The admitted case of the petitioner is that the

¶34

Institution	which	had	granted	him	a D	egree	is no	t a
recognised	Institute	in	te	rms	of		Indian	Medicine,
Central	Council	Act,	1970.		Neither	the	Degree	awarded
to him	nor the	Instit	ution	which	awar	ded	him the	Degree
find place	in	the	Schedule	A,	B or	C	of the	Act.
Contention	of the	lear	ned C	ounsel	for	t	he petition	er is
that in	terms	of	sub-section	(h)	of	Secti	on 2 of	the
Indian M	edicine,	Centra	l Co	uncil		Act	any	medical
qualification	which	eve	n if	not	found	in	3rd or	4th
Schedule	of the	Act	would	be	suf	ficient	for	practice.

¶35

Sub-section (h) of section 2 of the Act is reproduced

¶36

below :

¶37

(h) "recognized medical qualification"

¶38

means any of the medical qualifications, including post-graduate medical qualification, of Indian medicine included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule;

¶39

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the

¶40

petitioner	that		this defi	nition	is	inclusive and it
would	mean	that	any	of	the	medical qualification
acquired	from	any	Institution	wou	ld	entitle a person to
practice.	If	su	ch an	interp	retation	is placed on
sub-section	(h)	than	the	whole	act	will become useless.
The	word	‘includ	ed’ in	sub-sec	tion	(h) merely include
post	graduate	qua	lification	and	no	other qualification.
The	medical	qu	alification	should	be	by a recognized
medical	institution	and	it mus	t be	fou	nd in 2nd, 3rd or
4th	Schedule	of	the Act.		Theref	ore, such a submission
can	also not	be	accepted.	For	this	reason, we do not

¶41

¶42

find any merit in the Writ Petition which is,

¶43

accordingly dismissed.

¶44

No order as to costs.

¶45

( BILAL NAZKI, J.)

¶46

( S.A. BOBDE, J.)

Prakash Anant Gujar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Anant Gujar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramnikbhai Odhavjibhai Aatha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Muruganantham Muthu Thirumani Nadar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Kumar Jagpati Ram Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S. Tagr Dredging and Marine Engineering Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Kasamali Abdul Rehman Shaikh Vs Senior Police Inspector and Anr.

Kiran Devkumar Jadhav and Anr. Vs the City Survey Officer, Sangli and Ors.