1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6337 OF 2006 Dr. Rupkumar s/o Dilip Roy Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents. Shri K.B . Jadhav h/f R.P.Bhoomkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.G. Ghatge, AGP for respondent. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH & K. U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. We have heard Mr. K.B. Jadhav instructed by Mr. R.P. Bhoomkar learned counsel, who appears for for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner approached to this Court with following prayers. A. Rule may kindly be issued. 2 B. Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction or writ of certiorari like nature and to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the application filed by the petitioner on 10.1.2003 and grant Registration Certificate in favour of the petitioner as a Medical Practitioners and registered at Maharashtra. C. Issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction or writ of mandamus like nature directing to the respondents to entered the name of the petitioner as Medical Practitioner in the register maintained by the Maharashtra Council of India Medicine and directing the respondents including the police Authority not to take any coercive action against the petitioner as a Medical Practitioner on the ground that his name is not registered in the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Council of India Medicine. D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the respondents their agents, servants, sub-ordinate officers etc. be restrained by order an injunction of this Hon’ble Court to take any adverse action against the petitioner on the ground that, the petitioner is not registered in the State of Maharashtra. E. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the application filed by the petitioner and grant Registration Certificate in favour of the petitioner. F. Any other suitable and equitable relief may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. 3. This petition appears to have been filed by the petitioner on 16.8.2006and placed before this Court on 13.9.2006. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, issued notice before admission returnable within two weeks. This Court has also directed by way of interim relief, till the returnable date that no 3 coercive action be taken against the petitioner. Learned AGP who was present before the Court waives service of notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4. Today, when this petition was taken up for admission and hearing, learned AGP Mr. Ghatge makes statement that he can appear on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 State of Maharashtra and respondent 3 Superintendent of Police, Latur. According to him, he cannot appear for respondent No.2, Maharashtra Council of India Medicine unless specific instructions have been received. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have considered the prayers made in prayer clause 'C'. According to petitioner, he is duly qualified person and obtained B.A.M.S. (Ayurged) degree from Sampoornanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya Waranasi (U.P.) in the year 2001 and on receipt of the degree started practice at Raja Bajar District Patna and therefore, he has applied for registration before the Registrar at Bihar. According to learned counsel for petitioner his application submitted to Registrar for registration was considered and on 2.5.2001 and certificate to that effect has been issued. Suffice to note that such registration is claimed by the 4 petitioner within the limits of State of Bihar. Counsel for the petitioner points out further statement made in paragraph No.2 of the writ petition on account of some personal difficulties, petitioner travelled to Murud small village within the limits of Taluka and District Latur and started practice there. He had applied for change of address and therefore address of the petitioner is changed. 6. Issue of legal right of a person claiming to be duly qualified for registration of Medical Officer / Doctor and practice accordingly within the limits of State of Maharashtra was brought by bunch of writ petitions before this Court at Mumbai. It was in the matter of Nagpal V/s. Union of India. Matter was heard. This court delivered a judgment which is reported in 2007 Mh.L.J. One of the petitioner in that group approached to the Honourable Supreme Court. Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. maintaining the order passed by this Court which is reported in 2007 (3) Mh.L.J. 275 ( Nageshwar Basantram Dubey Vs. Union of India and others). 7. In the case on hand, petitioner has made statement that he applied to the respondent No.2 on 10.1.2003 for grant of registration certificate as medical practitioner within the limits of State of 5 Maharashtra. We could not get the copy of such application dated 10.1.2003 on record. In our view, this petition is pending for admission before this court from the year 2006. Very basis, that copy of the application alleged to have been sent to respondent No.3 is not on record. Mr. Ghatge, learned AGP is appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. We do not wish to keep this petition pending since there is no substance in this writ petition in our opinion. However, in the interest of justice, we are directing to respondent No.2 to decide the application dated 10.1.2003 of the present petitioner, if it has been received by the respondent No.2 - authority. We make it clear that, if, such application is not received by the respondent No.2, then there is no question of passing any order by respondent No.2 authority. In case of receipt of such application, respondent No.2 shall decide this application in accordance with the provisions of law within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the communication. We direct the Registrar of this Bench to communicate copy of this order to respondent No.2 by Speed Post/Registered Post A.D./Fax on or before 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. 8. In this view of the matter, writ petition stands disposed of 6 with direction to respondent No.2 that if copy of the application of the present petitioner dated 10.1.2003 has been received by the respondent No.2, said application shall be considered and decided within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order by respondent No.2. Interim relief, granted by this court, stands vacated. ( K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) ..... aaa/6337.06