1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6828 OF 2010 Romen Tikedar S/o Shriram Tikedar .... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Others. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.H.Kasliwal, Advocate holding for Mr. Gopal C. Navandar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for Resp.Nos. 1 to 4 - State . CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE: 26/08/2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the communication dated 26/04/2010 ( Exh. ‘ E ’ ) issued by the Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital, Bhokar, District - 2 Nanded informing the petitioner that the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted as the petitioner was running Nursing Home, which was not registered under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners’ Act, 1961 ( For short, ‘ Act of 1961 ’ ). 2. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner possess the qualification of B.S.A.M. and certificate thereof issued by the Institute of Alternative Medicines, at Calcutta, which is known as Bachelor of Alternative system of medicine. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of said qualification, the petitioner had applied for registration under Section 5 of the Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act, 1949 ( For short, ‘ Act of 1949 ’ ) and the petitioner was granted registration No. 087 under the Act of 1949 on 22/05/2006. He submitted that thereafter the petitioner has applied for renewal of the said licence. The licence was renewed up to 31/03/2009, but thereafter the respondents have not renewed the registration under the provisions of the Act of 1949. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that registration of Nursing Home under Section 5 of the Act of 1949 is mandatory and that Section 5 of the Act of 1949 provides that the application for renewal of the registration may be refused by the local supervisory authority if it is satisfied that the nursing home is not under the management of a person 3 who is either a qualified medical practitioner or a qualified nurse and who is resident in the home or that there is not a proper proportion of qualified nurses among the persons having the superintendence of or employed in the nursing of the patient in the home. Reference is also made to other clauses of sub section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1949. It is submitted by the Govt. Pleader that the petitioner has not shown that the Nursing home, for which renewal of the registration is applied for, is under the management of qualified medical practitioner or qualified nurse. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the above objection, the petitioner will again approach the authority by submitting an application for registration with all the legal requirements. He submits that the petitioner shall do so within the period of two ( 2 ) weeks from today. 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that nothing further is required to be done in the matter. The respondents will accept the petitioner’s application for registration which can be made within the period of one ( 1 ) month and thereafter the respondents shall decide the same in accordance with law. The respondents shall consider the same within the period of two ( 2 ) months from the receipt of the application. 4 6. The parties may act upon copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Shirastedar. CHIEF JUSTICE [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/ WP 6828.2010