SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249302

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL LAXMAN PANSAREHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ D. WAKODE
PURUSHOTTAM S/O DEENDAYAL DWIVEDI AND 5 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS SECRETARY MEDICAL EDUCATION AND DRUGS DEPARTMENT MUMBAI AND 2 OTER – Respondent
WP/917/2014



##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-NAG:15085-DB

1

38-CriWP-244-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 244/2018

(Raju s/o Wadguji Lanjewar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 34/2017, 201/2015,

235/2015, 256/2017, 254/2022, 476/2016, 584/2017, 713/2014,

663/2016, 664/2016, 810/2014, 841/2014, 917/2014 AND

864/2016

__________________________________________________________________________

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 244/2018, 34/2017,

201/2015, 235/2015, 256/2017, 254/2022, 476/2016,

584/2017, 713/2014, 810/2014, 841/2014 AND 917/2014

Mr. Sanket Walde h/f Mr. S.R. Narnaware, Counsel for the

petitioners.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NOS. 663/2016, 664/2016 AND

864/2016

Mr. Nilesh Nagapure h/f Mr. A.V. Band, Counsel for the

petitioners.

Mr. A.B. Badar, A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

.....

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND

RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.

DECEMBER 24, 2025

The petitioners claim themselves to be the

medical practitioners on the basis of degrees issued by the

State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Council, Bihar,

governed and regulated by the Bihar Development of

Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 (for

short “Act of 1951”). The petitioners have, however, not

placed on record copy of degrees. What is placed is a

certificate saying that their names are registered as

medical practitioners at Patna in terms of the Act of 1951.

2] The petitioners have approached this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

##PAGE2##

2

38-CriWP-244-2018

declaration that they are covered by the definition of

‘registered medical practitioner’ entitled to keep all

allopathic medicines by virtue of their degrees and

registrations in the State of Bihar in terms of order dated

29/7/1998 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of State of Haryana Vs. Phool Singh [Criminal

Appeal No. 369/1994], which reads as under :

“For the last few days, we have heard a batch of

civil matters in which sub-clause (iii), claue

(ee) of Rule 2 of the Drugs and Cosmetics

Rules, 1945 has been the subject matter of

debate in its widest spectrum. Prima facie

conclusions drawn therefrom make us fould

that the judgment of the High Court cannot be

faulted with. The respondent does come within

the definition of a registered medical

practitioner entitled to allopathic medicines on

virtue of his degree and registration in the State

of Bihar. We thus find nothing to interfere in

this appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.”

3] Thus, the Supreme Court has, on prima

facie basis, opined that the conclusions drawn by the

High Court cannot be faulted with. The Court then held

that the respondent therein comes within the definition of

‘registered medical practitioner’ entitled to allopathic

medicines on virtue of his degree and registration in the

State of Bihar.

4] Subsequent thereto, the Supreme Court, in

the case of Dr Mukhtiar Chand And Others Vs. State of

Punjab and Others [(1998) 7 SCC 579], took an

altogether different view, which reads as under :

“49. The upshot of the above discussion is that

Rule 2(ee)(iii) as effected from 14-5-1960 is

valid and does not suffer from the vice of want

##PAGE3##

3

38-CriWP-244-2018

of legislative competence and the notifications

issued by the State Governments thereunder are

not ultra vires the said Rule and are legal.

However, after sub-section (2) in Section 15 of

the 1956 Act occupied the field vide Central Act

24 of 1964 with effect from 16-6-1964, the

benefit of the said Rule and the notifications

issued thereunder would be available only in

those States where the privilege of such right to

practise any system of medicine is conferred by

the State law under which practitioners of

Indian medicine are registered in the State,

which is for the time being in force. The

position with regard to medical practitioners of

Indian medicine holding degrees in integrated

courses is on the same plane inasmuch as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top