Crown Veterinary Services Private ... vs Maharashtra State Veterinary Council on 6 January, 2026

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Crown Veterinary Services Private ... vs Maharashtra State Veterinary Council on 6 January, 2026

1. The Petitioners by this Writ Petition have sought a direction to Respondent No.1 - Maharashtra State Veterinary Council KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV (for short "MSVC") to grant the Petitioners' employees viz. Dr. Abigail Digitally signed by KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV Date: 2026.01.06 16:51:05 +0530 Waddington and Dr. Alex Mullany the certificate of registration as Page 1 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. Veterinary Practitioners and enter their names on the Indian and Maharashtra State Veterinary Practitioners' Registers.

2. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has applied for ad-interim / interim relief in the above Writ Petition. He has submitted that although Dr. Abigail Waddington and Dr. Alex Mullany, employees of the Petitioners, are holding recognized veterinary qualifications i.e. membership of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ("RCVS") and fulfilling the requirements for registration as prescribed in Section 46 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 ("the Act"), their Applications, both dated 1st November, 2025, have not been acted upon by the Respondent No.1 - MSVC. He has relied upon prior orders passed by this Court wherein those similarly placed as Dr. Abigail Waddington and Dr. Alex Mullany viz. holding recognized veterinary qualification i.e. membership of RCVS, have been allowed to be entered on the Indian and Maharashtra State Veterinary Practitioners' Registers and have been granted Certificate of Registration, subject to the outcome of their Writ Petitions. They have also been allowed to practice and have been conferred with rights and entitlements as Veterinary Page 2 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. Practitioners in India under the Act. He has also placed reliance upon the Certificates of Registration having been granted to Foreign Veterinarians, holding membership with RCVS and who are engaged by the Petitioner No.1 as employees. These are in the case of Dr. Milena Zanetti, Dr. Jose Ramon Jose Escalera Segura, Dr. Tiago Evaristo Fernando Mota Borges Mota and Dr. Carl Fabian Nehore on the strength of their membership of the RCVS. He has accordingly sought for grant of ad-interim relief as had been granted by this Court in the case of Anisha Vaishwas Bhisey v. Union of India 1 and Aditya Jha v. Union of India2.

3. There is a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this Petition raised by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on whose behalf, Mr. Govilkar, learned Senior Counsel appears. He has submitted that the Petitioner No.1 being a private company is not entitled to invoke Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as this fundamental right is only available to citizens and not to juristic persons such as the Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is a Shareholder and Promoter of Petitioner No. 1 who is not invoking his 1 Order dated 15 October 2025 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 29478 of 2025. 2 Order dated 3 April 2023 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 9051 of 2023. Page 3 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade and business in terms of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. He has accordingly submitted that this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution at the behest of a company or on behalf of non-citizen individuals is not maintainable.

4. Mr. Jagtiani has dealt with this preliminary objection. We find much merit in his submissions. The Respondent No.1's inaction to enter the names of the Petitioners' employees, who are otherwise eligible under the scheme of the Act is alleged to be arbitrary and discriminatory, and therefore violative of the Petitioners' constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, the protection against arbitrary state action is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and is available to all 'persons', including corporations. Thus, a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a company alleging violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution is maintainable.

5. Insofar as the ground of challenge under Article 19(1)(g) Page 4 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. of the Constitution is concerned, the Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 1's refusal to follow the statutory scheme under the Act directly impairs his rights as a shareholder because Petitioner No. 1 continues to bear the burden of employing these doctors who, despite being duly qualified and eligible for registration and practice in India, are unable to do so because of arbitrary state inaction. The Petitioners are directly affected by the delay / inaction of Respondent No. 1 to process the application of its employees, Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany as their present inability to practice as Veterinarians' in India has affected the business of Petitioner No. 1. The non grant of Certificate of Registration, though having been issued to other similarly placed foreign veterinarians who are engaged by Petitioner No.1, in the case of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany, is discriminatory and violates the Petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. This Court also has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Writ Petition as the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the assertion of Mr. Govilkar Page 5 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction merely because the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are having their registered offices outside the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be accepted.

7. Mr. Govilkar has submitted that there is a distinction drawn under the Act between Foreign Nationals and Indian Nationals and the place of practice makes a difference. He has referred to the Certificate of Good Standing received by Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany from the RCVS which shows the current registration status of their membership as practice outside the United Kingdom ("U.K."). He has submitted that presuming that the Petitioners' case is to be accepted that by virtue of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany having been registered as members of RCVS i.e. holding recognized veterinary qualifications, their practice is required to be in the U.K. He has submitted that given the fact that they were practicing outside the U.K., their veterinary qualification would not make them eligible to have their names entered on the Indian and Maharashtra State Veterinarian Practitioners' Register.

8. This objection has also been dealt with by Mr. Jagtiani. He has submitted that the requisite Veterinary qualification is that of being a Page 6 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. member of RCVS and that is the only requirement for registration as provided under the Second Schedule read with Section 16 of the Act. Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany fulfill this requirement of registration. The mere fact of their practicing outside U.K. would not dis-entitle their names being entered on the Indian and Maharashtra State Veterinary Practitioners Register.

9. We find much merit in this submission of Mr. Jagtiani. Having perused the requisite provisions of the Act viz. the Second Schedule read with Section 16 and 46 of the Act, by virtue of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany holding the recognized veterinary qualifications i.e. membership of RCVS, they fulfill the requirement for registration as Veterinary Practitioners under the Act.

10. Further, there is no dispute as to Dr. Waddington holding veterinary qualifications i.e. Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Bachelor of Veterinary Surgery (with honours) from the University of Nottingham, awarded to her on 13 July 2016 and that she being admitted to the membership of the RCVS on 13 July 2016 by virtue of holding the accepted qualification in terms of Section 3 of the (UK) Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1966. Similarly, there is no dispute as to Page 7 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. Dr. Mullany holding veterinary qualifications i.e. Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Bachelor of Veterinary Surgery from the University of Nottingham, awarded to him on 13 July 2016 by virtue of holding a qualification accepted in terms of Section 3 of the (UK) Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1966. The length of the course i.e. 5 years as against 5-1/2 years Veterinary Medicine Course recognized in India has been held by this Bench to be of no consequence, considering that the requirement under the Act for recognition of veterinary qualification is membership of the RCVS under the Second Schedule to the Act. There is no such requirement of length of the course under the Second Schedule read with Section 16 of the Act.

11. On the prior date, viz. 22nd December 2025, after passing the order and completion of the board, Dr. Ajay Poharkar, President and Dr. Manjusha Pundlik, Registrar of Respondent No.1 - MSVC appeared alongwith their Counsel Mr. Sanjaykumar P. Khairnar and they were directed to remain present in Court through Video Conferencing today. They have remained present. Upon a query put to them that as to whether the applications of the employees of the Petitioners viz. Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany made on 1 st Page 8 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. November, 2025 would be considered by the MSVC, they had shown reluctance stating that these applications are required to be made to the Government of India and cannot be considered under Section 47 of the Act.

12. We find there is no basis for such reluctance on the part of President and Registrar of the MSVC to consider the applications of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany made on 1 st November 2025, given that the applications have been made in the requisite form under the Act and it was for the MSVC to consider these applications under section 47 of the Act. Further, we do not find merit in the submission of Mr. Govilkar that presuming these applications are in proper form, considered by the MSVC and rejected, an Appeal lies to the State Government under Section 47(4) of the Act, and therefore this Court ought not to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

13. It is also pertinent to note that even in the past, Petitioner No.1 has engaged similar qualified foreign veterinarians, who have been granted certificates of registration by Respondent No.1 to practice in India on the basis that they were members of RCVS. The necessary averments in this regard are set out in Page 9 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Considering that this court has in the orders passed in Anisha Vaishwas Bhisey (supra) and Aditya Jha (supra) directed the MSVC to register the names of the Petitioners therein, on the Indian and Maharashtra State Veterinary Practitioners' Registers and grant Certificates of Registration as well as allow the Petitioners therein to practice and be conferred rights and entitlements as Veterinary Practitioners in India under the Act, subject to hearing of the present Writ Petition, we do not consider it appropriate to direct MSVC to decide these applications, particularly given their reluctance.

15. It has been observed in the prior order dated 15 th December, 2025 passed in the present Petition that the Government of India, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying by their letter dated 28th October 2025 issued to the MSVC and the Veterinary Council of India which was followed up by another letter dated 5 th December, 2025 addressed by them, they had clarified that by registration of a qualified person as member of the RCVS for practice in U.K., it Page 10 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. implies that the education and training of that particular person is verified by the RCVS, U.K. (a body similar to Veterinary Council of India (VCI) in India) and is a confirmation of the technical qualifications of the person for practice in U.K. Such registration for practice in U.K. is recognized as eligibility to be registered and to practice Veterinary Medicine in India. Therefore, the Veterinary Graduates registered as members of RCVS, U.K. are considered eligible to be registered as per the provisions of the Second Schedule read with Section 16 the Act. Further, in the follow-up letter dated 5 th December, 2025, the request made by the VCI for amendment of the Second Schedule to the Act by deletion of the member of RCVS has been answered by stating that it is the prerogative of the Government of India. The VCI was accordingly requested to take necessary action to communicate the clarification dated 28 th October, 2025 to all State Councils and provide an Action Report within 15 days of the receipt of the said letter.

16. Inspite of these letters from the Government of India, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to adhere to the clarification by taking action on the applications of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany Page 11 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. It is pertinent to note that instead of taking action on the said applications of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany, the Respondent No.1 has by a Show Cause Notice dated 9 th December, 2025, issued during the pendency of this Writ Petition, and received by the Petitioners on 17th December, 2025 by E-mail and 19th December, 2025 by post, alleged that the Petitioner No.1 has appointed / engaged persons holding Veterinary Graduate Qualifications, but who are not registered with Respondent No.1. It is alleged that this appointment / engagement is in violation of Section 30(a) of the Act. It is further pertinent to note that at no point of time during the hearing on 15th December, 2025 did the Petitioners inform this Court that the Show Cause Notice dated 9th December, 2025 was issued to the Petitioners in respect of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany.

18. We prima facie find the Show Cause Notice issued by Respondent No.1 suffers from non application of mind. From a perusal of Section 30(a) of the Act, it is apparent that the prohibition is with regard to a person, other than a registered Veterinary Practitioner, holding office of Veterinary Physician or Surgeon or any Page 12 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. other like office (by whatever name called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority. Thus, this provision is wholly inapplicable to the Petitioners' employees Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany, particularly since the Petitioner No.1 is neither Government nor an institution maintained by a local or other authority, but is a private limited company.

19. We accordingly find that the Petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief viz. for directing Respondent No.1 to enter the names of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany on the Indian and Maharashtra State Registers' for Veterinary Practitioners in terms of prayer Clause (b) of the Petition, since they fulfill eligibility criteria prescribed in Section 46 of the Act. The Petitioners have further made out a prima facie case for grant of stay on the operation of Show Cause Notice pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition in terms of prayer Clause (d) read with amended prayer Clause b(a) of the Petition as Petitioner No.1 does not fall under the ambit of "in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority" provided under Section 30(a) of the Act. Furthermore, Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany are Page 13 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. not practicing Veterinary Medicine in Maharashtra since their names are yet to be entered in the State Veterinary Practitioners' Register. The balance of convenience weighs in favour of the Petitioners who are incurring significant expenses for employing Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany but being unable to deploy them in practice due to want of registration which prima facie is being arbitrarily withheld. Furthermore, Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany have been engaged by Petitioner No.1 inter alia to mentor Indian veterinarians employed by Petitioner No. 1 and unless Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany are granted registration, Petitioner No.1 would not be in a position to benefit from their professional expertise during the limited contractual term which in turn, might even result in cancellation of the contract.

20. There shall be ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Clauses (b), (c) and (d) - as modified which reads thus:

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 (Maharashtra State Veterinary Council) to grant the Petitioner's Employees, i.e. Dr. Abigail May Waddington and Dr. Alex Mullany, the certificate of Page 14 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 ::: RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc Crown Veterinary Services P.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maha State Veterinary Council & Ors. registration as veterinary practitioners and enter their names on the Indian and Maharashtra State Veterinary Practitioners' Register, subject to the outcome of the present Writ Petition;

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Petitioner's Employees (Dr. Abigail May Waddington and Dr. Alex Mullany) to practice as registered veterinary practitioner in terms of the Act / direct the Respondent No.1 (Maharashtra State Veterinary Council) to allow the Petitioner's Employees i.e. Dr. Abigail May Waddington and Dr. Alex Mullany to practice and be conferred rights and entitlements as Veterinary Practitioners in India under the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984.

(d) Grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (ba) viz. stay of the show cause notice dated 9 th December, 2025 issued by Respondent No.1 against Petitioner No.1.

21. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall enter the names of Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany on the Indian and Maharashtra State Veterinary Practitioners' Registers and grant Certificate of Registration within a period of four weeks from uploading of this order. This will be subject to the outcome of the present Writ Page 15 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. It is clarified that this order will operate as long as Dr. Waddington and Dr. Mullany are members of RCVS.

23. The Respondents shall file their Affidavit-in-Reply to the Writ Petition within a period of four weeks from today.

24. The Petitioners are at liberty to file their Affidavit-in- Rejoinder thereto within a period of two weeks thereafter.

25. The Writ Petition shall be placed for hearing at the admission stage on 23rd February, 2026.

        [FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.]                                                                                                                                                                       [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
RO-WP(L) 40020.2025.doc
Kavita S.J.




                                                    Page 16 of 16

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order dated 6 January, 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2026 20:50:15 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court