Disposed¶19

Laxman Bhimrao Sawant v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Apr 2026WP/4350/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra Acupuncture System of Therapy Act 2015; Section 3(3)(a); Section 3; Administrator appointment Notification dated 13.07.2023 (one-year period expired); representation dated 27.02.2026 to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4; election of five members to the council; State Government to adhere to provisions, elections not postponed indefinitely; direction to respondent No.1 to decide representation within three months; writ petition disposed; Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench; Kankanwadi & Kadethankar, JJ.; 22.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.1 directed to decide the representation dated 27.02.2026 to the extent of holding of elections to the council, within three months; writ petition disposed of with these observations. ¶19

Laxman Bhimrao Sawant vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No.1 directed to decide the representation dated 27.02.2026 to the extent of holding of elections to the council, within three months; writ petition disposed of with these observations.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.1 and 4 should hold the election for electing five members as per Section 3(3)(a) of the Maharashtra Acupuncture System of Therapy Act, 2015, the one-year Administrator appointment having expired. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The Court observed that holding of elections and formation of the council as per Section 3 of the Maharashtra Acupuncture System of Therapy Act, 2015 should be adhered to by the State Government and cannot be postponed indefinitely.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed respondent No.1 to decide the representation dated 27.02.2026 to the extent of holding of elections to the council, such decision to be taken within three months.

¶18

Key takeaways

The Court noted that the Notification appointing respondent No.3 as Administrator provided for a one-year period, which has expired.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay HC (Aurangabad Bench), coram Vibha Kankanwadi & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. (order dated 22.04.2026) in Writ Petition No. 4350 of 2026 (Laxman Bhimrao Sawant v. State of Maharashtra and others): Petitioner challenged the Notification dated 13.07.2023 issued by respondent No.1 appointing respondent No.3 as Administrator; the Court noted the Notification's period was limited to one year and had expired, though counsel submitted respondent No.3 continued as Administrator. Petitioner demanded elections for five members per Section 3(3)(a) of the Maharashtra Acupuncture System of Therapy Act, 2015 and had made a representation dated 27.02.2026 to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. No notice was issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4. Observing that the State should implement the Act and that holding of elections and formation of the council per Section 3 cannot be postponed indefinitely, the Court confined relief to directing respondent No.1 to decide the representation dated 27.02.2026 to the extent of holding of elections to the council within three months, and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:17926-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

930 WRIT PETITION NO. 4350 OF 2026

¶4

LAXMAN BHIMRAO SAWANT

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶7

Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for petitioner Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶8

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 22^nd APRIL, 2026

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

. Heard learned Advocate for petitioner and learned AGP for

¶12

respondent Nos.1 and 2. No necessity to issue notice to respondent Nos.3 and 4, taking into consideration the submissions on behalf of petitioner.

¶13

2 Though the petitioner is challenging the Notification dated 13.07.2023 issued by respondent No.1, thereby appointing respondent No.3 as the Administrator, it can be seen that the said Notification states that the period of Notification or the appointment of Administrator is only for one year. That period is over. However, learned Advocate for petitioner submits that still respondent No.3 is working as an Administrator and, therefore, he has filed various representations to various authorities. The petitioner also

¶14

¶15

930_WP_4350_2026

¶16

demands that respondent Nos.1 and 4 should hold the election for electing five members as per Section 3(3)(a) of the Maharashtra Acupuncture System of Therapy Act, 2015. Learned Advocate for petitioner submits that representation dated 27.02.2026 is made to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Even if directions are given to respondent No.1 to decide the said representation, the purpose of the petition would be served.

¶17

3 Here, it is to be noted that other allegations appears to have been made. It should be the endeavour of the State to implement the various provisions of the Act i.e. the Maharashtra Acupuncture System of Therapy Act, 2015. Holding of elections and formation of the council as per Section 3 of the said Act should be adhered to by the State Government and it cannot be then postponed in infinity. Therefore, we restrict the representation dated 27.02.2026 to be decided by respondent No.1.

¶18

4 We direct respondent No.1 to decide the representation dated 27.02.2026 to the extent of holding of elections to the council. Such decision be taken by respondent No.1 within a period of three months from today.

¶19

5 With these observations, we dispose of the writ petition.

¶20

( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )

¶21

( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) agd

Laxman Bhimrao Sawant v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Bhimrao Sawant v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary 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

Pathan Mohammad Khan Chand Khan vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Kalpana Santosh Gurle vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sayed Rafiq Syed Lal vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Raghu Mahadu Pathare and Others vs the Union of India and Others

Prashant Ramakant Sonar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Ramabai Anna Abhang and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others