WP 6510/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6510/2010 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri M.S. Jagtap, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 31.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who claims to be a Diploma holder in homeopathy medical science, has made the following prayers: “[C] To direct the respondent no.2 to decide the application dated 23.3.2010 which is at Exh.’C’ to this petition within period of one month from today and for that purpose issue necessary orders. [D] To grant an injunction restraining the respondent no.3 and his servants, agents WP 6510/10 2 and subordinates from disturbing practice of the petitioner as a Homeopathic Doctor during the pendency and final adjudication of his claim.” It appears that the petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.309/2008 in this Court being aggrieved by the notice issued against him to stop his medical practice. That writ petition was dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, it was clarified that dismissal of the writ petition would not be an impediment in the path of the petitioner applying for registration under the legislation, if he fulfills the required conditions / criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner claims, he applied for registration to the Secretary, Government Medial Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, on 23.3.2010 and since, he did not receive any response to his application till this date, he has filed the instant writ petition. Respondent no.3 – the District Collector, Ahmednagar Dist.Ahmednagar has filed reply affidavit stating that respondent no. WP 6510/10 3 1 – Secretary is not an authority to enroll the petitioner as medical practitioner. That apart, they have further stated the petitioner is not holding a recognized degree to practice in homeopathy. We would not like to examine whether the petitioner is entitled to be enrolled, as prayed for. It is always open to the petitioner to apply to the concerned authority seeking his enrollment. Keeping that remedy open to the petitioner, we dispose of this writ petition by issuing the following directions to the petitioner. The petitioner under any circumstances shall not practice as a homeopathy doctor unless and until he is enrolled by the competent authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. If the petitioner is practising as Homeopathy Doctor, he should stop the practice forthwith. If the petitioner continues to practice, the concerned respondent should not hesitate to take WP 6510/10 4 appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 31.03.2011 ndk/c313115