Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Rekha Singh vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Bombay HC
2026
Rekha Singh vs the State of MaharashtraRekha Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Disposed¶21

Rekha Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Feb 2026WP/1212/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rekha Singh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., WRIT PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2026, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), decision date 05-02-2026; bench Ravindra V. Ghuge & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ. Disposal (not adjudication on merits) of challenge to rejection of a registration application under Section 29, Maharashtra State Council for Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Act, 2002 ('the Act of 2002'); statutory appeal against rejection lies to the State Government; directions that Respondent No. 3 forward the tendered Appeal to Respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya) within five working days, hearing notice within five working days to Petitioner's email/WhatsApp, reasoned order within 30 days under the due procedure of the Act of 2002. Advocates: T.J. Pandian (Petitioner); P.P. Kakade, Addl.GP with V.G. Badgujar, AGP (Respondent No.1, State); Priyanka Patil (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3). No cases cited; no monetary amount involved.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions: Respondent No. 3 to place the Petitioner's Appeal before Respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai) within five working days; Respondent No. 1 to issue a hearing notice to the Petitioner within five working days on her stated email ID/WhatsApp numbers, follow the due procedure under the Act of 2002, and pass a reasoned order within 30 days of receiving the Appeal. ¶21

Why is it important?

Respondent No. 3 shall place the Petitioner's Appeal before Respondent No. 1 within five working days from the date of the order. ¶22-23

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with directions: Respondent No. 3 to place the Petitioner's Appeal before Respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai) within five working days; Respondent No. 1 to issue a hearing notice to the Petitioner within five working days on her stated email ID/WhatsApp numbers, follow the due procedure under the Act of 2002, and pass a reasoned order within 30 days of receiving the Appeal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of the Petitioner's registration application under the Act of 2002 can be disposed of by directing that the statutory appeal already tendered to Respondent No. 3 be placed before Respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department) for hearing and a reasoned decision under the said Act.

Court's answer

Respondent No. 3 shall place the Petitioner's Appeal before Respondent No. 1 within five working days from the date of the order.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No. 1 shall issue a notice of hearing to the Petitioner within five working days, on her stated email address/WhatsApp numbers.

Key takeaways

Respondent No. 1 is expected to follow the due procedure laid down under the Act of 2002 and to pass a reasoned order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Appeal from Respondent No. 3.ratio¶25-26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ghuge & Mantri, JJ.; order dated 05-02-2026) disposed of W.P. No. 1212 of 2026 filed by Rekha Singh against rejection of her registration application under Section 29 of the Maharashtra State Council for Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Act, 2002. Since the Petitioner had already tendered a statutory appeal to Respondent No. 3, the Court directed Respondent No. 3 to place the Appeal before Respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai) within five working days; directed Respondent No. 1 to issue a notice of hearing to the Petitioner within five working days on her stated email address/WhatsApp numbers; and expressed its expectation that Respondent No. 1 follow the due procedure under the Act of 2002 and pass a reasoned order within 30 days of receipt of the Appeal. No precedent was cited; the order records no quantum.

A

TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2026.02.10 11:48:23 +0530

921-wp-1212-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2026

Rekha Singh … Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

Mr.T.J.Pandian for the Petitioner.

Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl.GP with Mr.V.G.Badgujar, AGP for Respondent No.1, State.

Ms.Priyanka Patil for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 05, 2026

P.C:

This matter was heard for some time.

The learned Advocate representing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that an Appeal can be filed against the rejection of a registration Application under Section 29 of the Maharashtra State Council for Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Act, 2002 (the Act of 2002), before the State Government in the prescribed manner.

...1

Trupti

921-wp-1212-2026.odt

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that he has

tendered the Appeal to Respondent No. 3. He prays that Respondent No. 3 be directed to place the Appeal before Respondent No. 1, the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

The learned Advocate representing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that this would be done within five working days from today.

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off.

Respondent No. 3 would place the Appeal before Respondent

No. 1 within five working days from today. Respondent No. 1 would issue a notice of hearing to the Petitioner, within five working days, on her following email address/WhatsApp number:

Email ID :- [email protected] Whatsapp Number :- 8408855890/ 9167266972

We expect Respondent No. 1 to follow the due procedure laid

down under the Act of 2002 and to pass a reasoned order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the Appeal from Respondent No. 3.

(ABHAY J.MANTRI, J.)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

...2

Trupti

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ petition challenging rejection of the Petitioner's registration application under the Act of 2002 can be disposed of by directing that the statutory appeal already tendered to Respondent No. 3 be placed before Respondent No. 1 (Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department) for hearing and a reasoned decision under the said Act.medium confidence¶19
The court held
Respondent No. 3 shall place the Petitioner's Appeal before Respondent No. 1 within five working days from the date of the order.ratio¶22-23

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Maharashtra State Council for Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Act, 200229¶14 the Act of 2002¶14

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Rejection of the Petitioner's registration application under Section 29 of the Maharashtra State Council for Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Act, 2002, against which a statutory appeal lies to the State Government (as submitted by counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3); rejecting forum and date not stated in the order.¶14
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's registration application under the Act of 2002 was rejected; counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stated that an appeal against such rejection lies to the State Government in the prescribed manner.¶14
Prior proceeding
Petitioner tendered the statutory Appeal to Respondent No. 3 and prayed that Respondent No. 3 be directed to place it before Respondent No. 1, the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.¶19

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Rekha Singh¶5
T.J. Pandian
respondent
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.¶5
P.P. Kakade, V.G. Badgujar, Priyanka Patil

Coram

AI extract

Ravindra V. Ghugemember¶9
Abhay J. Mantrimember¶10

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 5 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 23 Jan 2026
Case no.: WP/1212/2026
CNR: HCBM010025652026
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge Abhay J. Mantri
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ravindra V. Ghuge Abhay J. Mantri

Madhubala Bharatnath Yadav Alias vs the Commissioner the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
4 Feb 2026
Rajendra Sambhaji Dharmalkar vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.
4 Feb 2026
Ashok Shripati Deokar and Anr. vs the President Sinhagad Technical Education Society and Ors.
4 Feb 2026
Vijayraj Salluki Gupta vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (through the Honble Municipal Comm.)
5 Feb 2026
Samco Securities Ltd. vs Triton Communications Pvt. Ltd.
5 Feb 2026
Rajaram Jainandan Yadav vs the Municipal Commissioner
5 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

Rekha Singh v. the State of Maharashtra, WP/1212/2026 (BOM), decided on 5 February 2026.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Maharashtra State Council for Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Act, 200229 · the Act of 2002

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Rejection of the Petitioner's registration application under Section 29 of the Maharashtra State Council for Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy Act, 2002, against which a statutory appeal lies to the State Government (as submitted by counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3); rejecting forum and date not stated in the order.
Petitioner's registration application under the Act of 2002 was rejected; counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 stated that an appeal against such rejection lies to the State Government in the prescribed manner.
Petitioner tendered the statutory Appeal to Respondent No. 3 and prayed that Respondent No. 3 be directed to place it before Respondent No. 1, the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri

Parties & counsel