Bombay High Court
Manmohan Pashupatinath Upadhyay And 9 ... vs Maharashtra Council Of Homoeopathy And ... on 5 August, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, Prithviraj K. Chavan
2-854-2020-WP-L-C=.doc
Uday S. Jagtap
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 854 OF 2020
Manmohan Pashupatinath
Upadhyay and Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Maharashtra Council of Homeopathy & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 8079 OF 2020
Atul Kumar Gupta and Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Maharashtra Council of Homeopathy & Ors. .. Respondents
.....
Mr. Ashutosh Kaushil a/w Ms. Aarti Singh i/b M/s. Kaushik & Co.
for the petitioners
Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode for respondent no.1
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for respondent State in W.P. (L)
854/2020
Mr. P.H. Kantharia, G.P. for respondent - State in W.P.(L)
8079/2020
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.J.
DATED : 5th AUGUST, 2021
P.C.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners are seeking declaration that Section
20(5) of the Maharashtra Homeopathy Practitioner's Act,
Digitally signed
UDAY by UDAY
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
SHIVAJI Date:
JAGTAP 2021.08.07
15:12:22 +0530
1 of 3
2-854-2020-WP-L-C=.doc
1966 is repugnant to Section 15 read with Section 26 of the
Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. The petitioner is
also seeking declaration that for the purpose of practicing in
any State, a person already enrolled with the respondent
no.2 under Part-I of the Central Register under HCC Act,
1973 or directly registered under the Central Register as per
Rule 3 of the Homeopathy Central Council (Registration)
Regulations, 1982, the Section 20(5) of the Maharashtra
Homeopathy Practitioner's Act, 1969 would be directory in
nature and not mandatory.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the
interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain
respondent no.1 from taking any action against the
petitioners in their practice.
4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1
submits that perusal of Exh.I-A (page 43 of the petition) i.e.
letter dated 10th September, 2015 clearly shows that
respondent no.1 called upon the petitioner to place on record
whether respondent no.5 conducted exams in accordance
with law or not. He further submits that inspite of service,
neither respondent no.2 nor respondent no.5 filed any reply
explaining Exh.I-A of the present petition. Therefore, there
is no question of granting any interim relief in the present
proceedings.
5. We heard the learned Counsel for both the sides.
2 of 3
2-854-2020-WP-L-C=.doc
6. Admittedly, as on today, the petitioners are not registered
with respondent no.1 as per the Maharashtra Homeopathy
Practitioner's Act, 1959 and, therefore, there is no question
of grant of any ad-interim or interim relief.
7. In view of this fact, the following order is passed :-
ORDER
(i) Rule.
(ii) No interim relief.
(iii) Mr. Bansode, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 waives service.
(iv) Hearing of both the petitions are expedited.
(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.) 3 of 3