Bombay High Court
Lceh Doctors' Association vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 April, 2013
Author: S.J. Vazifdar
Bench: S.J. Vazifdar, Mridula Bhatkar
OSWP1208.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1208 OF 2011
1. LCEH Doctors' Association, having its office ]
at Dev Smruti, 5th Road, JVPD Scheme, ]
Mumbai - 400 056. ]
2. Dr. Vijay Pushottam Pattani, having his ]
his Clinic at Sainath Chawl, SMS Road, ]
Near Metro Cinema, Antop Hill, ]
Wadala, Mumbai - 400 037.
]
3. Dr. Vinod Mohanraj Jain, having his Clinic
ig ]
at 3, Modi Minar, Bhau Daji Marg, ]
Matunga (East), Mumbai - 400 019. ] ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra, through Government ]
Pleader, High Court (Original Side), ]
Mumbai - 400 032. ]
2. Secretary, Medical Education and Medical ]
Drugs Department, having his office at ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
3. Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs ]
Administration, Maharashtra State, ]
Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), ]
Mumbai - 400 051. ]
4. Maharashtra Council of Homeopapthy, ]
through its Registrar, having his office at ]
Piramal Mansion, D.N. Road, Mumbai-400001 ] ... Respondents
SRP 1/23
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:20 :::
OSWP1208.11
Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni with Ms. Gitanjali Prabhu i/b Mr. Ramchandra
Yadav for the Petitioners.
Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, &
MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
MONDAY, 15TH APRIL, 2013
JUDGMENT :[Per S.J. Vazifdar, J.] 1. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Writ Petition is heard finally.
2. Respondent No.2 is the Secretary of the Medical Association and Medical Drugs Department of the State of Maharashtra;
Respondent No.3 is the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration of the State of Maharashtra; and Respondent No.4 is the Maharashtra Council of homoeopathy.
3. The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside a circular dated 4th February, 2002, and an order dated 31 st March, 2011.
SRP 2/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:20 :::OSWP1208.11 The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to declare the medical practitioners having the qualification of Licentiate of Court of Examiners in Homoeopathy (L.C.E.H.) as persons practicing the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945; directing the respondents to recognize under section 28 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965, L.C.E.H., as as one of the qualifications prescribed for entitling registration under the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965;
directing the respondents to allow medical practitioners possessing L.C.E.H. qualifications to practice the modern scientific system of medicine (Allopathy); restraining the respondents from taking any action against medical practitioners possessing an L.C.E.H. qualification under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, for prescribing medicines under the modern scientific system of medicine and directing the respondents to withdraw the impugned orders.
4. The petitioner No.1 is an Association of doctors with a SRP 3/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:20 ::: OSWP1208.11 Licentiate of the Court of Examiners in Homoeopathy (L.C.E.H.).
The members of the petitioner No.1 possess the said qualification.
The L.C.E.H. course was started in the State of Maharashtra in the year 1951 and continued upto the year 1982. It was a four-year course. The last batch was admitted in the year 1982, including repeaters and the last person completed the course and was registered under the provisions of the laws, we will shortly refer to, in the month of October, 1987. There are today, only about 800 such persons. As the course has been discontinued, this number can only decrease and not increase.
5. It is necessary to trace the relevant enactments over the years.
6. The Bombay Homoeopathic Act, 1951 was brought into force on 23rd January, 1952. Sections 2(6), (9), (10), (11), 18(1), 21 and 29(1) thereof read as under :-
"2. in this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context -
..............
(6) "practitioner" means a person who practices the Homeopathic system of medicine, as his principal occupation;SRP 4/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:20 :::
OSWP1208.11 .......
(9) "qualifying examination" means an examination in homeopathic system of medicine specified in Schedule I and includes any previous examination as a preliminary to such examination;
(10) "register" means a register of practitioners prepared and maintained under this Act;"
(11) "registered practitioner" means a practitioner whose name is for the time being entered in the register;
..........
18. (1) The State Government shall, as soon as may be, cause to be prepared a register of homoeopathic practitioners for the State.
..........
21. After the constitution of the Board referred to in sub-section (1) of section 20, a person shall on payment of Rs.10 be entitled to have his name entered in the register, only if he possesses any of the qualifications specified in Schedule I. ...........
29. (1) The course of studies and the examinations specified in Schedule I shall be the course of studies and the qualifying examinations held for the purpose of granting a diploma or a degree conferring the right of registration under this Act and such other course of studies and examinations as may, on the recommendation of the Board, be included in Schedule I by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette."
Schedule I insofar as it relates to LCEH qualifications reads as under:-
" SCHEDULE I
I. COURSE OF STUDIES.
.......
SRP 5/23
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:20 :::
OSWP1208.11
L.C.E.H.
Pre-admission qualification - Matriculation or S.S.C. Examination with Science.
Ist Examination -
Period of study - 6 months.
{Physics
Subject - Elementary {Chemistry
{Biology
Examination - One paper of 3 hours and a practical examination in each subject.
2nd Examination -
Period of study - 18 months after 1st examination.
Subjects - Anatomy, Physiology, Pharmacology of important allopathic unani and ayurvedic drugs, Homoeopathic materia medica, pharmacy and dispensing, Homoeopathic Philosophy, Organon.
Examination - A paper of 3 hours' duration and a practical and viva voce examination each in (1) Anatomy, (2) Physiology, (3) Homoeopathic Philosophy and Organon, (4) Homoeopathic materia medica and pharmacy and dispensing.
A paper of 3 hours' duration in Comparative Pharmacology of allopathic unani and ayurvedic drugs.
3rd and Final Examination -
Part I. - To be taken at any time one year after 2 nd examination; the two parts may be taken together also, two years after second examination.
SRP 6/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:20 :::OSWP1208.11 Subjects - Pathology, Forensic Medicine, Hygiene.
Examination - A paper of 2 hours' duration in each subject and a viva voce examination.
Part II. - Two years after 2nd examination.
Subjects - Medicine (including Homoeopathic materia medica, Therapeutics and Repertory), Surgery, Mid- wifery and Gynaecology Examination - A paper of 3 hours' duration with clinical, practical and viva voce examination in each subject."
7(A)(i).
The 1951 Act was replaced by the Bombay Homoeopathic and Biochemic Practitioners Act, 1959, which came into force on 18th March, 1960. Sections 2(6), 2(12), 2(16), 20(12)(a) and (b) thereof read as under :-
"2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, -
........
(6) "Court" or "Court of Examiners" means the Court of Examiners of Homoeopathic and Biochemic Systems of Medicine, Bombay, constituted under section 16;
.......
(12) "Practitioner" means a practitioner of the Homoeopathic or Biochemic System of Medicine ;
........
(16) "Registered practitioner" means a practitioner whose name is for the time being entered in register ;
........
20. (1) As soon as may be after the appointed day, SRP 7/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:20 ::: OSWP1208.11 the Registrar shall prepare and maintain thereafter a register of Homoeopathic and Biochemic practitioners for the State of Bombay in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
........
(3) Every person who possesses any of the qualifications specified in the First Schedule shall, at any time on an application made in the form prescribed by rules to the Registrar and on payment of a fee of Rs.10, be entitled to have his name entered in the register.
.........
(12) (a) Every registered practitioner shall be given a certificate of registration in the form prescribed by rules."
(ii) The Bombay Homoeopathic and Biochemic Practitioners (Amendment) Act, 1974, with effect from 10 th September, 1974, substituted section 20(b) by the following :-
"(b) Such certificate shall be valid until it is duly cancelled and the name of the practitioner is removed from the register under the provisions of this Act ; and every certificate of registration given before the commencement of the Bombay Homoeopathic and Biochemic Practitioners' (Amendment) Act, 1974, which is valid on such commencement shall, subject to the provisions of section 26, be valid likewise, and shall continue accordingly."
Item 6 of the FIRST SCHEDULE reads as under :-
" FIRST SCHEDULE.
........
(6) Licentiate of the Court of Examiners in
SRP 8/23
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 :::
OSWP1208.11
Homoeopathy (L.C.E.H.) constituted under this Act."
(B). The Court of Examiners, in exercise of powers under section 35 of the 1959 Act made bye-laws which came into force on 15 th June, 1965. Bye-law - I provided that the new L.C.E.H. course would be introduced with effect from June, 1965 and students admitted thereafter would receive training in the new course. Provisions were also made for continuation of the old course in certain cases for a period of four years from June, 1965. New institutions desiring to conduct the L.C.E.H. course were to be recognized only for the new course. Bye-law - II (9) provided that the details of the syllabus would be as shown in the Appendix thereto.
8. The syllabus of the LCEH course clearly demonstrates that it was an integrated syllabus of the allopathy and homoeopathic streams of medicine. As rightly submitted by Mr. Kumbhakoni, one of the indications of this is found in Part II of the syllabus for the final examination, which reads as under : -
" FINAL EXAMINATIONS
..........
6. PART II : Subjects.-(1) Practice of Medicine, (2) SRP 9/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 Homoeopathic Materia Medica & Philosophy, (3) Surgery, (4) Midwifery & Gynaecology. (i) There shall be a written paper in each of the subject of (1) Practice of Medicine, (2) Surgery and (3) Gynaecology and Midwifery comprising of two sections ; of these one section will deal with the subject proper which will carry 60 marks and the other will deal with questions laying more emphasis on Homoeopathic and Biochemic therapeutics under those subjects and will carry 40 marks."
Mr. Kumbhakoni's reliance in this regard upon a note prepared by the Medical Education and Drugs Department dated 11 th August, 2003, is also well founded.
ig It states that the holders of LCEH qualification were taught 60% allopathy and 40% homoeopathic medicine.
It was also not contended on behalf of the respondents that the course prior to 1988 was not an integrated course. It is, therefore, not necessary to refer to the entire syllabus to establish this fact.
9(A). The State of Maharashtra sanctioned Bye-laws under section 35 of the 1959 Act which came into force on 6th April, 1973, which provided for a four-year course leading to a diploma in homoeopathy titled Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery (DHMS).
SRP 10/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 :::OSWP1208.11 (B). On 11th May, 1983, the Central Council of Homoeopathy, in exercise of powers conferred by section 33(i) (j) and (k) and section 20(i) of The Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, made regulations called the Homoeopathic (Diploma Course) Regulations, 1983. The same introduced the DHMS (Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery) and BHMS (Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery) qualifications. These courses also dealt exclusively with qualifications pertaining to homoeopathic medicine.
10. The significance of the introduction of the above courses leading to the said qualifications by the bye-laws of 1973 and 1983 is that they pertained only to homoeopathy. The LCEH course was not de-recognized. The same emphasizes that the L.C.E.H. course did not involve only the homoeopathic system, but was an integrated course, which included allopathy. The petitioners members hold the LCEH qualification.
11. As stated earlier, with effect from 10th September, 1974, section SRP 11/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 12(b) of the 1959 Act was amended.
12. The Bombay Homoeopathic & Biochemic Practitioners' (Amendment) Act,1985, which came into effect on 2nd June, 1988, inter-alia, amended section 20(12)(a) of the 1959 Act. Section 20(12)
(a), as amended, reads as under :-
"12(a) Every registered practitioner shall be given a certificate of registration in the form prescribed by rules and shall practice Homoeopathic and Biochemic systems of Medicines only. The registered practitioner shall display the certificate of registration in a conspicuous place in his dispensary, clinic or place of practice;"
The question is whether the amendment of 1988 would apply to the members of the petitioner's association who had obtained the LCEH qualification prior thereto. We have come to the conclusion that it does not. The petitioner's members continued practicing allopathy even after this amendment. They were entitled to do so.
13. The Government of Maharashtra issued the impugned circular dated 4th February, 2002, paragraph 2 whereof reads as under :-
"2. In this respect, the Government issues directions that the homeopathic practitioners who are holding qualifications under homeopathy and the licence as per SRP 12/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 the provisions of sections 20(12)(A) of Mumbai Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1959, shall practice only homeopathy practice.
By order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra."
14(A). The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.794 of 2006 for an order directing the State of Maharashtra and the Secretary, Medical Association Department to declare that medical practitioners holding the L.C.E.H. qualification be recognized as persons practicing the modern scientific system of medicine for the purposes of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The petitioners also sought some of the reliefs which have been claimed in the present Writ Petition. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by an order dated 15th November, 2010, directing the State Government and the Medical Education Department to take a decision on the question of entitlement or otherwise of the homoeopathic doctors who had obtained their qualification in L.C.E.H. prior to 1982 to practice in any other branch of medicine.
(B). Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners made a representation.
SRP 13/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 :::OSWP1208.11 By the impugned order dated 31st March, 2011, the Secretary, Medical Education and Medical Drugs Department rejected the same.
15. The impugned order dated 31st March, 2011, inter-alia, noted that the Director of Medical Education, by a letter dated 27th October, 2009, had recommended the eligibility of holders of L.C.E.H. qualification prior to 1982 for practicing allopathy. It is also important to note that the order recorded that the Medical Education Department had made it clear that the study in L.C.E.H. was an integrated study. The order refers to various opinions, including of the Advocate General in favour of the petitioner. We, however, have not considered the opinions. After noting the rival contentions, the order merely stated as under :-
"ANALYSIS L.C.E.H. eligibility is concerned with Homeopathy and registration of the same and can be done through Homeopathy Council. Bombay Homeopathy Practitioners Act, 1959 came to be amended in the year 1988 and it was made mandatory for the qualified homeopaths to practice only in homeopathy. Central Council of Homeopathy has not given liberty to the L.C.E.H. eligibility holders to practice allopathy. Even if it is presumed that before the amendment came to be made in the Bombay Homeopathy Practitioners Act, 1959 in the year 1988 SRP 14/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 the L.C.E.H. eligibility holders were practising in allopathy, however, after 1988 those practitioners are banned from practising allopathy. As of today, almost for a period of 23 years, the said ban is in force, therefore, during the said period of 23 years, L.C.E.H. eligibility holders are having no concern with the allopathy medicines. If permission is granted to them to practice allopathy after such a long period, then there would be difficulties in giving treatments to the patients and not only that even health of the patients will be affected adversely. Therefore, the demand of the association cannot be granted."
16. The order does not deal with the issues raised in the said Writ Petition. It does not even refer to the various provisions of law in regard thereto. It proceeds on the basis that the 1988 Amendment banned holders of the LCEH qualification from practicing allopathy.
17. There is nothing in the amending Act generally or in the amendment in particular that makes the same retrospective. Clearer language would be required to make the provision retrospective for it substantially adversely affects the rights of the persons who had obtained the LCEH qualification and had been practicing in fields other than homoeopathic and biochemic systems of medicine. That they had been doing so prior to the amendment is not seriously denied.
The observation to the contrary in the impugned order is not based on SRP 15/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 any material whatsoever. In fact, the material indicates the contrary.
In any event, it is not disputed that prior to the amendment, persons who had obtained the LCEH qualification were entitled to practice the modern scientific system of medicine as well.
The 1988 amendment to section 20(12)(a) was obviously in view of the fact that the course had, in the year 1988, changed substantially. It was no longer an integrated course.
18. It is pertinent to note that by a communication dated 30 th June, 2011, addressed to the President of the Central Council of Homoeopathy, the Secretary to the Government stated that various enactments as well as rulings did not allow crosspathy practice "until such doctors are fully trained in allopathic medicine". By the said letter, the Secretary requested the President of the Central Council of Homoeopathy to initiate steps to include allopathic pharmacology and allopathic medicine into their syllabus if the Council desired that the homoeopathic doctors should be allowed allopathic practice and stated that only after such changes in the syllabus were made, that any law or SRP 16/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 Act could be changed by the Government so as to consider the demands of the homoeopathic doctors for allowing them allopathic practice.
19. Incidentally, the letter was addressed by the same Secretary to the Government who passed the impugned order. The relevance of the letter dated 30th June, 2011, is that it stated that crosspathy practice was not allowed until homoeopathic doctors were fully trained in allopathic medicine.
ig The letter also suggests that if the course includes allopathic pharmacology and allopathic medicine in the syllabus, homoeopathic doctors would be allowed allopathic practice.
As we noted earlier, allopathic medicine was included in L.C.E.H. syllabus. They were thus permitted to practice allopathic medicine till the impugned circular.
20. The Maharashtra Directorate of Medical Education and Research by a letter dated 27th October, 2009, in reply to the petitioner's letter dated 16th September, 2009, confirmed that the LCEH syllabus which continued upto 1982 included allopathic SRP 17/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 pharmacology and that the same had been conveyed to the Secretary, Medical Education and Medicine Drugs, Mumbai. By a letter also dated 27th October, 2008, the Directorate informed the said Secretary of the same and opined and recommended that doctors who had completed the LCEH syllabus prior to 1982 can practice allopathic medicine.
21. The petitioners case and indeed, the stand of the State of Maharashtra, at least, at one stage is supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Subhasis Bakshi v. W.B. Medical Council (2003) 9 SCC 269. In the case before us also, the petitioners have not sought registration under the Indian Medical Register. They seek recognition under the State Medical Register. The Supreme Court held as under :-
"10. The only relief, which these appellants are seeking, is the protection of their "consequential right to treat" such as issuing prescriptions or sickness or death certificates. As a matter of fact the respondents do not dispute the validity of Notification No. Health/MA/7076/5M-5/80 dated 15-10-1980. It is by virtue of this notification that the appellants were having the right to treat. Now the only question for consideration is whether the appellants, who are having the right to treat could issue prescription or sickness or death certificates.SRP 18/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 :::
OSWP1208.11
11. In this context it is worthwhile to discuss Mukhtiar Chand (Dr) v. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC
579. In this case the validity of notifications issued by the State Governments of Punjab and Rajasthan, under Rule 2(ee)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 whereby the Governments declaring some vaids/hakims as persons practising modern medicines was challenged. Upholding the validity of the notifications and the said Rule, this Court held that, for the purpose of the Drugs Act "what is required is not the qualification in modern scientific system of medicine but a declaration by a State Government that a person is practising modern scientific system and that he is registered in a Medical Register of the State". (SCC p. 593, para 32) In Dr Mukhtiar Chand this Court also clarifies that there could be two registers for medical practitioners i.e. Indian Medical Register and State Medical Register. As far as the State Medical Registers are concerned, the State Government concerned according to the rules will determine the required qualification. While recognizing the rights of vaids or hakims to prescribe allopathic medicines, this Court also took into account the fact that qualified allopathic doctors were not available in rural areas and persons like vaids/hakims are catering to the medical needs of residents in such areas. Hence the provision which allows them to practise modern medicine was found in the public interest. In this context Dr Mukhtiar Chand holds that: (SCC pp. 595-96, para
38) "It is thus possible that in any State, the law relating to registration of practitioners of modern scientific medicine may enable a person to be enrolled on the basis of the qualifications other than the 'recognized medical qualification' which is a prerequisite only for being enrolled on the Indian Medical Register but not for registration in a State Medical Register. Even under the 1956 Act, 'recognized medical qualification' is sufficient for SRP 19/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 that purpose. That does not mean that it is indispensably essential. Persons holding 'recognized medical qualification' cannot be denied registration in any State Medical Register.
But the same cannot be insisted upon for registration in a State Medical Register. However, a person registered in a State Medical Register cannot be enrolled on the Indian Medical Register unless he possesses 'recognized medical qualification'. This follows from a combined reading of Sections 15(1), 21(1) and 23. So by virtue of such qualifications as prescribed in a State Act and on being registered in a State Medical Register, a person will be entitled to practise allopathic medicine under Section 15(2)
(b) of the 1956 Act."
Based on this reasoning this Court partially overruled A.K. Sabhapathy which earlier ruled that a person could practise allopathic medicine only if he possessed a recognized medical qualification. In Medical Council of India v. State of Rajasthan (two Judges), it was observed that: (SCC p. 732, para 4) "4. It would thus be clear that the basic qualification of MBBS as primary qualification is a precondition for a candidate for being registered in the State Medical Register maintained by the State Board."
Identical view expressed in the decision in A.K. Sabhapathy on the same point having been overruled, this view in Medical Council of India v. State of Rajasthan also stands impliedly overruled.
12. Coming back to the case in hand, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment relied upon A.K. Sabhapathy to deny the appellants' right to prescribe medicines or to issue sickness or death certificates and held that the appellants do not possess the "recognized SRP 20/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 medical qualification". In the light of the ruling in Dr Mukhtiar Chand this view of the Division Bench cannot be sustained. Therefore there is no bar to register the name of the appellants in the State Medical Register.
13. Now the only issue for consideration is whether the right to issue prescription or certificates could be treated as a part of right to treat. In Dr Mukhtiar Chand it was pointed out that: (SCC p. 601, para 48) "... because prescribing a drug is a concomitant of the right to practise a system of medicine. Therefore, in a broader sense, the right to prescribe drugs of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe an allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practise allopathic medicine."
The appellants are validly holding the right to treat certain diseases. So their right to issue prescriptions or certificates cannot be detached from their right to treat. Such right to issue certificates or prescriptions is imbibed in the right to treat. One cannot and shall not be separated from the other. Once the right to treat is recognized, then the right to prescribe medicine or issue necessary certificate flows from it. Or else the right to treat cannot be completely protected. Hence, even assuming for a moment that the 1915 notification is not there, still the appellants' right to prescribe medicine cannot be denied. In that view of the matter, the order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored.
14. Therefore, the respondents shall make necessary arrangements to include the names of all the diploma-
holders concerned in the State Medical Register for the limited purpose indicated therein within a period of six months from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
SRP 21/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 :::OSWP1208.11
22. The petitioners also do not seek to be enrolled on the Indian Medical Register. They seek registration under the State Act viz. The Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965. The petitioner's case is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court.
23. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers a, b(ii), b(iii) and b(iv), which read as under :-
"a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the medical records and proceedings pertaining to the issuance of Circular dated 4th February, 2002, Exhibit-"H" hereto, and Order dated 31st March, 2011 Exhibit-"AA" and after examining the validity, legality and propriety thereof the same be quashed and set aside;
b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction ;
i) ...........
ii) Directing Respondents to forthwith recognize
under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 Licentiate of Court of Examiners in Homeopathy (LCEH) as one of the qualifications SRP 22/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 ::: OSWP1208.11 prescribed for entitling registration under the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965;
iii) Allow the Medical Practitioners possessing Licentiate of Court of Examiners in Homeopathy (LCEH) qualifications the practice of modern scientific system of medicine (Allopathic);
iv) Restrain the Respondents from in any manner take any action against the Medical Practitioners possessing Licentiate of Court of Examiners in Homeopathy (LCEH) qualifications under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 for prescribing the medicines under modern scientific system of medicine;"
In view of the above, it is not necessary to grant the other reliefs. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
SRP 23/23 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:50:21 :::