Disposed

Anilkumar Pandurang Shingate v. Secretary, Pharmacy Council and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2016WP/2655/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging notices from the Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council and State of Maharashtra was disposed of. The Court held the challenge was premature and deemed the 2002 Circular set aside due to amendment in the Maharashtra Medical Council Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Circular dated 4th February, 2002 deemed set aside; challenge to notice held premature.

Anilkumar Pandurang Shingate Vs Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP. 2655-02

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 2655 OF 2002

¶5

Dr. Anilkumar Pandurang Shingate … Petitioner Vs. Secretary, Pharmacy Council & Ors. … Respondents. ***

¶6

Mr. Uday Warunjikar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, for the Maharashtra Medical Council. Mr. Chirag Kamdar, for the Indian Medical Association.

¶7

¶8

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : MARCH 7, 2016

¶9

PC.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶11

Petitioner. Application for intervention is allowed. Maharashtra Medical Council and the Indian Medical Association are permitted to intervene in the petition.

¶12

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is challenging the notice which is issued by the Maharashtra State Pharmacy Council dated 8^th May,

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

WP. 2655-02

¶15

2001, and also the circular dated 4^th February, 2002 issued by the State of Maharashtra through its Medical Education and Drugs & Cosmetic Department.

¶16

In our view by the impugned letter dated 8^th May, 2001 the Maharashtra Medical Council has asked the Petitioner to desist from using using allopathic medicine. We are of the view that – so far as challenge to this particular letter is concerned, the challenge is premature, since no action has been taken so far. Petitioner has not admitted that he is using allopathic medicine, though he is a Homeopathic practitioner.

¶17

We are informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that as per the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965, the State of Maharashtra has permitted the Homeopathic practitioners to start prescribing allopathic medicine on their completing six months course. In our view, therefore, on account of amendment to the said Act, the Circular dated 4^th February, 2002 is deemed to be set aside. The State of Maharashtra has allowed the Homeopathic Practitioners to practice allopathic medicine. In this view of the matter, the question - as to whether under Section 20(12)

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

WP. 2655-02

¶20

(a) of the Bombay Homeopathic Practitioners' Act, 1959 is repugnant to the Central Council of Homeopathy Act, 1973 has become academic, is not necessary to decide at this stage. Hence, the writ petition itself has worked out. Reserving the right of the Petitioner to approach this Court in the event he is prosecuted, writ petition is disposed of

¶21

Sd/Sd/-

¶22

Vinayak Halemath

¶23

3 / 3

Anilkumar Pandurang Shingate v. Secretary, Pharmacy Council and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar Pandurang Shingate v. Secretary, Pharmacy Council and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mishra Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Maharshtra and 3 Ors.

Mr Bhagatsingh S/O Chandar Walmiki and 2 Ors. Vs Shree Siddhivinayak Coop Hsg Soc Ltd. and 16 Ors.

Mr. Rajesh Mahadev Shekatkar Vs Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Anant Joma Patil Deceased through Lrs. Smt. Muktabai Ananta Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer) and Anr.

Mr. Anant Joma Patil Deceased through Lrs. Smt. Muktabai Ananta Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer) and Anr.

Sahebrao Gulabrao Dhamale (Decd.) and Ors. Vs the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer NO.1 and Ors.