1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1898 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1898 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1898 OF 2007 Dr. Prakash A. Gujar ..... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/b S.B. Deshmukh for Petitioner Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Additional Advocate General with Mr. A.S. Pai for State. Mr. Sagar G. Talekar with Shri R. Rodrigues for Respondent No. 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. : BILAL NAZKI & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1) The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to take action against the Petitioner either under the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 or under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 unless any authority mentioned under the aforesaid Acts, authoritatively decides whether the Petitioner is entitled to practise medicine in the State of Maharashtra or not. 2) The Petitioner claimed that he has degree in Ayurweda from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and as such he is entitled to practise in the State of Maharashtra. It is further his case that he is registered Medical Practitioner in Bihar in terms of provisions of Bihar Development of Ayurved and Unani 2 Systems of Medicine Act, 1951. It is contended that such a relief was also sought by the Association of the Doctors belonging to the Ayurvedic stream of which the Petitioner was a Member. 3) Learned Counsel for the Respondents has drawn our attention to the Judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7648 of 2000. The question in this Writ Petition was whether degrees granted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan were recognised Medical degrees in terms of law or not. The Court held that degrees granted by Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan cannot be held to be medical qualification and as such the matter stands concluded. 4) The learned Counsel for Petitioner, however submits that the submissions he is making presently were not considered in earlier petition. Since the Petitioner was also a member of Association which filed earlier petition, he may not be entitled to make such a submission, however in the interest of justice, we consider new submissions also. 5) The first submission is that Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 is not applicable to the Petitioner and as such he cannot be deprived of the right to practise because he is not registered under the Act. He relies on Section 1(3) of the said Act which lays down : 3 "The whole Act (except Chapter VI) shall come into force on such date as the State Government may by Notification, in the Official Gazette appoint and Chapter VI shall come into operation, on such date (being the subsequent date) as that Government, by like Notification appoint". 6) The Notification for application of the Act, except Chapter VI, was issued on 23rd October 1961 and the Act other than Chapter VI became applicable from 21st October 1961. Thereafter, it appears that Chapter VI was applied by virtue of Notification dated 1st September 1966. Therefore, on reading Section 1 as it is, it becomes clear that Chapter VI became applicable by virtue of Notification dated 1st September 1966. But the contention of the learned Counsel is that Section 33, which is part of Chapter VI, has undergone amendments in the year 1979 and after amendments in Section 33, no further Notification was issued. In accordance with Section 1, this argument cannot be accepted. Chapter VI was applied in the year 1966. Section 33 stood applied as after Chapter VI became applicable. Therefore any amendment made subsequent to 1966 in Section 33 would not be dependent on Notification of the application in terms of Section 1. After application of Section-33, amendments to Section- 33 would not render such amendments in applicable by any rate of Interpretation. 4 7) The admitted case of the petitioner is that the Institution which had granted him a Degree is not a recognised Institute in terms of Indian Medicine, Central Council Act, 1970. Neither the Degree awarded to him nor the Institution which awarded him the Degree find place in the Schedule A, B or C of the Act. Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Indian Medicine, Central Council Act any medical qualification which even if not found in 3rd or 4th Schedule of the Act would be sufficient for practice. Sub-section (h) of section 2 of the Act is reproduced below : (h) "recognized medical qualificatio means any of the medical qualifications, including post-graduate medical qualification, of Indian medicine included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule; 8) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this definition is inclusive and it would mean that any of the medical qualification acquired from any Institution would entitle a person to practice. If such an interpretation is placed on sub-section (h) than the whole act will become useless. The word ‘included’ in sub-section (h) merely include post graduate qualification and no other qualification. The medical qualification should be by a recognized medical institution and it must be found in 2nd, 3rd or 4th Schedule of the Act. Therefore, such a submission can also not be accepted. For this reason, we do not 5 find any merit in the Writ Petition which is, accordingly dismissed. 9) No order as to costs. ( BILAL NAZKI, J.) BILAL NAZKI, J.) BILAL NAZKI, J.) ( S.A. BOBDE, J.) S.A. BOBDE, J.) S.A. BOBDE, J.)