Summary
The Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act 1961, contains provisions for registration and enlistment of medical practitioners. Clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 17 of the Act provides that any person not being a person qualified for registration under sub-sections (3) or (4) who proves to the satisfaction of the Committee appointed under sub-section (6), "that he was on the 4th day of November 1941 regularly practising the Ayurvedic or the Unani System of Medicine in the Bombay area of the State, but his name was not entered in the register maintained under the Bombay Medical Practitioners Act, 1938" shall be entitled to have his name entered in the register on making an application and on payment of the prescribed fee.
The respondent whose name was listed by the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh in the register of Vaids and Hakims practised as a Vaid and as an Ayurvedic Doctor in Agra and Bhopal respectively. He migrated to Bombay in 1962 where he started practice as an Ayurvedic Doctor. He applied for registration as a medical practitioner to the Committee of the Medical Board of Unani system of Medicine under sub- section (5) of section 17 of the Act. His application was rejected, and his appeal filed to the Board was also dismissed.The High Court, however, allowed the respondent's writ petition, relying on its earlier decision in Rukmani Hoondraj Hingorani v. The Appellate Authority under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioner Act, 1961 (1969) 71 Bom.L.R. 71 (77), held section 17(5) of the Act as unconstitutional and set aside the orders passed by the Board.Dismissing the appeal to this Court,^HELD: 1. In Rukmani Hoondraj Hingorani v. The Appellate Authority under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 (1969) 71 Bom. L.R. 71(77) the validity of section 18(2)(b)(ii) fell for consideration and was rightly held to be unconstitutional as it offends the provisions of Article 14. It was observed in that case that the provision, by restricting the right of enlistment to those medical practitioners 'who have been regularly practising on 4th November, 1951 in the Bombay area of the State' had no rational nexus with the object of the Legislature which was to allow medical practice by those less qualified persons who were too old to choose alternative means of livelihood, and that while it was clearly open to the Legislature to provide that a person must have been practising for a certain number of years, or from before a particular date, in order that his name may be included in the list, no distinction on the basis of the area in which he had been practising could be made. [400C-H]399 2. The provisions of section 18(2)(b)(ii) being in pari materia with subsection (5) of section 17, the observations made in the above case apply also to this sub-section. This sub-section is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [401G]See the full content of this document
Extract
A. T. Zambre And Others VS. Kartar Krishna Shashtri
PETITIONER: A. T. ZAMBRE AND OTHERS Vs.RESPONDENT: KARTAR KRISHNA SHASHTRIDATE OF JUDGMENT17/12/1980BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D.BENCH: KOSHAL, A.D.ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)CITATION: 1981 AIR 796 1981 SCR (2) 398 1981 SCC (1) 561ACT: Constitution of India 1950, Art. 14 & The Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, S. 17(5)-Whether unconstitutional.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE...
See the full content of this document