Prashant Bhaskar Nagpure Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Health Department, Mumbai and Ors.

¶1

wp7311.2024.odt

¶2

1

¶3

2025:BHC-NAG:15055-DB

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7311 OF 2024

¶6

Dr. Prashant Bhaskar Nagpure

¶7

Vs

¶8

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Health Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32.

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶10

Mr. Abhay Sambre, counsel for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. D.V. Chauhan, Government Pleaer (Senior Counsel) a/b Ms M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent/State.

¶12

Mr Shubhankar Phadnis h/f Mr. N.C. Phadnis, counsel for respondent No.2. Ms. Rui Padrigues, counsel with Mr. A.D. Sonak, counsel for respondent No.3.

¶13

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR and RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. RESERVED ON: 13/11/2025 DATE OF DECISION: 24/12/2025

¶14

P.C. (Rajnish R. Vyas, J)

¶15

The petitioner, who holds qualification of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S) and has also completed M.S. (Ayurveda) Ophthalmology, has approached this Court with a prayer to set aside the orders dated 30/08/2024 and 22/11/2024, issued by respondent No.5. The petitioner was informed that he is not eligible, being an M.S. (Ayurveda) Ophthalmology degree-holder, to operate an operation theater as per provisions of Maharashtra Nursing Home Registration (Amendment) Rules, 2021. It is further stated in

¶16

the said communication that since he holds an M.S. (Ayurveda)

¶17

rkn

¶18

2 wp7311.2024.odt

¶19

Ophthalmology degree, he cannot operate the operation theater as per instructions issued under the National Programme for Control of Blindness and Visual Impairment (NPCBVI).

¶20

According to the petitioner, by issuing the said communication, the respondent authorities have acted contrary to law, and the same is violation of principles of natural justice. He contends that he is duly qualified and registered with the Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine, constituted under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners, Act 1961, and therefore no separate registration for operating an operation theater is required.

¶21

The petitioner, through his counsel Mr. Abhay Sambre, contends that the petitioner not only holds the required qualification and experience as per the syllabus, and is trained to perform surgery, but also has a statutory right to perform the operation. To support his contention, he submits that an initial registration certificate issued under 5 of the Bombay Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1949 (at Page 33), dated 17/05/2018, was issued in his favour and was valid upto 2021.

¶22

Subsequently, a renewal certificate (Page 34) was issued to

¶23

him under the same Act, stating that he was registered to run “Yogya Netralay, Bhadrawati,” and was authorised to operate the said nursing

¶24

rkn

¶25

3 wp7311.2024.odt

¶26

home. The certificate was valid up to 31/03/2026. A note at the bottom of the certificate stated that the Eye Operation Theatre should remain closed until further guidance is received from the Government.

¶27

On 11/12/2023, the petitioner submitted a detailed application requesting renewal of his registration. According to him, in view of the amendments introduced in the Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 in the year 2014 and the Central Council of Indian Medicine Notification dated 19/11/2020, he is authorised to act as an Ophthalmologist and perform eye surgery.

¶28

In a subsequent application dated 26/12/2023, he pointed out to the Civil Surgeon, Chandrapur that he does not work as a voluntary organization under the National Programme for Control of Blindness and Visual Impairment and does not avail any grant or benefit from the said programme.

¶29

According to him, on 01/10/2024, again Medical Superintendent (Class-1) Rural Hospital, Bhadrawati, District Chandrapur communicated to the petitioner that though the seal on operation theater fixed on 24/11/2023 is removed on 01/01/2024 but as per provisions of Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act, 1949, and the Maharashtra Nursing Home Registration (Amendment) Rules 2021, the petitioner cannot perform surgery in the operation theater,

¶30

rkn

¶31

4 wp7311.2024.odt

¶32

unless orders are received from Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrapur.

¶33

He further submits that on 04/03/2024, the Registrar of the Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine, Mumbai, submitted a detailed representation to the Joint Director of Health Services, Mumbai, in which it was reiterated that the petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner and eligible to perform eye surgery. It was also stated that the petitioner is entitled to obtain hospital registration under the Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act. Thus, the claim of the petitioner was supported by the Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine.

¶34

According to the petitioner, a communication dated 15/04/2024 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of India, stated that as per NPCBVI guidelines, an Ayurvedacharya is not permitted to conduct surgeries under NPCBVI and only MS (Ophthalmology), DNB (Ophthalmology) and DOMS degree-holders with a certain period of experience are eligible to conduct cataract surgeries.

¶35

The petitioner further relied upon information obtained by one Abhijit Agre on 24/04/2024. In response to his query as to whether it is necessary for all private practitioners to register their

¶36

rkn

¶37

5 wp7311.2024.odt

¶38

operation theatres or hospitals to conduct eye surgery under NPCBVI, the reply was given in the negative. Another query whether private practitioners or ophthalmologists not taking any grant-in-aid for cataract surgery are required to follow NPCBVI guidelines was also answered in the negative, with clarification that only the protocols/SOPs regarding eye-care services issued by the State be followed. A further query asking whether an ophthalmologist who does not want to be a part of NPCBVI but wants to conduct eye surgeries or run an eye hospital needs to be enrolled under NPCBVI was also answered in the negative.

¶39

He relying upon the information sought by Abhijit Agre on 24/04/2024 and 18/10/2021, submits that he is fully competent to perform eye surgeries. According to him, the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Amendment Regulations, 2020, amended the 2016 Regulations. In Regulation 10, after sub-regulation (8), the following sub-regulation was added:

¶40

“(9) During the period of study, the PG scholar of Shalya and Shalakya shall be practically trained to acquaint with as well as to independently perform the following activities so that after completion of his PG degree, he is able to perform the following procedures independently”

¶41

According to the said regulator, petitioner contends that MS (Ayurveda) (Shalya Tantra) graduates can perform cataract surgery

¶42

rkn

¶43

6 wp7311.2024.odt

¶44

– cataract extraction with IOL implantation surgery. In sum and substance, it is his contention that he is eligible to perform the eyesurgery.

¶45

In response to the notice, respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 filed a reply dated 01/03/2025 and stated that permission was granted to the petitioner, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Bombay Nursing Homes Registration Act (Amended), 2021, to run the nursing home. However, the said permission was issued with specific directions to follow Government directives.

¶46

According to the respondents, the Government of India, vide letter dated 15/04/2024, communicated that as per NPCBVI guidelines, Ayurvedacharyas are not permitted to conduct surgeries and only MS (Ophthalmology), DNB (Ophthalmology) and DOMS degree-holders with specified experience are eligible to conduct cataract surgeries under NPCBVI. The respondents did not dispute that separate registration under the Bombay Nursing Homes Act for conducting surgery is not required; however, considering the petitioner’s qualifications, permission to run a nursing home was granted only with certain terms and conditions. When the petitioner requested permission to perform eye surgery, respondent No. 5 sought guidance from the Director of Health Services and vide

¶47

rkn

¶48

7 wp7311.2024.odt

¶49

communication dated 14/08/2024, permission for performing eye surgeries was refused.

¶50

In order to support the contentions, the respondents invited our attention of the Court at page 135, which is the communication issued by the Deputy Director of Health Services.

¶51

The respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have further filed affidavit dated 18/08/2025 and contended that the National Programme for Control of Blindness & Visual Impairment (NPCBVI) is administered by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, which categorically treats cataract surgery as critical intra-ocular surgical intervention. The programme guidelines prescribe that only trained and qualified ophthalmology surgeons holding an MBBS and Post Graduate qualification in Ophthalmology are permitted to perform cataract surgeries.

¶52

The respondents further relied on a communication dated 14/05/2025 issued by the Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, addressed to all State Programme Officers (NPCBVI). In the said communication, specific guidelines regarding surgical services under the programme were issued. It was stated that due to recent reports of loss of vision following eye surgeries conducted at eye camps in certain States, the guidelines

¶53

rkn

¶54

8 wp7311.2024.odt

¶55

were formulated to ensure safe surgical practices. It was further observed that eye surgeries for removal of cataract, glaucoma, etc., are not to be treated as minor surgeries under any circumstances, since vision is essential for normal life and success in intraocular surgeries is necessary for restoration of normal vision. According to the respondent, the petitioner is not authorized to perform the eye-surgery and even Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Chandrpaur by communication dated 26/03/2025 has informed the Government Pleader that the petitioner was granted permission to run one bedhospital as per Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act, 1949 (Amended 2021) and he was never granted permission to perform eyesurgeries and operation theater by respondent No.5.

¶56

In the aforesaid background, one of the questions which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner, who holds qualification of MS(Ayurvada) Ophthalmology in 2024 can perform eye-surgery or not ?

¶57

In the aforesaid background, when impugned communications/orders dated 30/08/2024 and 22/11/2024 are perused, it would reveal that same were passed without dealing with various aspects of the matter. Thus, it can be said that the principles of natural justice are not followed. The question aforesaid framed in

¶58

rkn

¶59

9 wp7311.2024.odt

¶60

paragraph 18 and other questions which arise out of impugned communication are required to be dealt with by the respondent no. 4.

¶61

In the aforesaid background, we are of the opinion that the matter is required to be remanded back with direction to respondent no. 4 to decide issue mentioned in para 18 of this order, so also by dealing with all the points raised in the present petition (which are based on documents filed along with it). We thus permit the petitioner to appear before respondent no. 4 on 05/01/2026 at 11.30 a.m. along with copy of this petition and final order passed today.

¶62

The respondent no. 4 is directed to decide all the issues mentioned supra, within a period of four weeks from 5/1/2026, in accordance with law, after granting an opportunity of being heard to the respective parties.

¶63

The decision taken by the respondent no. 4 be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶64

Needless to mention that for deciding the issues, the impugned communication dated 30/8/2024 (pg.28) and communication dated 22/11/2024 (pg. 29) be ignored and fresh decision be taken.

rkn

wp7311.2024.odt

10

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶69

( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶70

rkn

Prashant Bhaskar Nagpure v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Health Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Prashant Bhaskar Nagpure v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Health Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipali Kapil Narwade and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

M/S Sun Sun Roadways, Nagarwadi, Yavatmal Thr. Its Proprietor, Dharmavir Satkumar Gupta Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry for Railways, New Delhi and Others

Nilesh Prabhakar Wankhade Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Akash S/O Ramesh More vs the State of Maha. Thr. Its Sec. Dept. of Irrigation, Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Ashish Shrikrushnarao Gohatre vs Satish Mugal, Education (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati and Others

Aryavarta Mining, Kolkata, Thr. Constituted Attorney, Debashis Sinha and Ors. vs Western Coalfields Limited, Coal Estate, Nagpur, Thr. Chairman Cum Managing Director and Ors.