-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5462 OF 2005 Mr. Madhukar Somanna Gannapa..Petitioner Versus The Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine & Ors...................Respondents Mr. A.M.Kulkarni i/b. Tejas D. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr. B.V. Phadnis for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.D. Rane, Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & F.I. REBELLO & F.I. REBELLO & DR. DR. DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : : : 19th January,2006 P.C.: . Rule. Heard forthwith. It appears that the persons similarly situated like the petitioner had approached this Court. Against the order of this Court the registered Medical Practitioners had moved the Apex Court in S.L.P. No.165 of 1993. The Apex Court in the Appeal directed the members of the Association to make individual representations to the State Government within four weeks and the State Government was directed to consider the same according to law. The case of the petitioner was not considered as it appears that he was not a member of the Association. The petitioner has now approached this Court. We see no reason why same order should not be passed in this case. In the light of that the following order;_ (1) The petitioner to make representation to the State of Maharashatra within four weeks from today. On such representation being made, the State Government to decide the -2- same according to law within a period of 16 weeks thereafter. Rule made absolute accordingly. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion whether the petitioner has the same qualification as the petitioners before the Apex Court. It is for the Government to consider the same. (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) J.) (DR. (DR. (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)