MANMOHAN PASHUPATINATH UPADHYAY Vs. MAHARASHTRA COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule was issued on 5/8/2021. The very limited point in this Petition pertains to the interpretation of Sec. 20 of the Maharashtra Homeopathic Practitioners Act 1960 ("Maharashtra Act"). The ten Petitioners are all homeopathic doctors. For eight of them, i.e., except for Petitioners Nos.2 and 4 annexed to the Petition at Exhibits B1 to B8 are copies of their Registration Certificates by the Central Council of Homeopathy, now the National Commission for Homeopathy. The certificates for Petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 were inadvertently omitted. Leave to amend to include these two copies as Exhibit B9 and B10 at pages 58A and 58B without need of reverification. Copies of these certificates have been given to the learned Advocate for the 1st Petitioner, the Maharashtra Council of Homeopathy.

(2.) The 3rd Respondent is the Ministry of AYUSH of the Government of India. The 4th Respondent is the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the State Government and the 5th Respondent is the Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar State University ("Ambedkar University"). The Petitioners all say that they obtained their qualifications from a Homeopathic College affiliated to the Ambedkar University and on that basis obtained these Registration Certificates.

(3.) The complaint in the Petition is that the 1st Respondent, the Maharashtra Council of Homeopathy, has refused to register the Petitioners on the Maharashtra rolls once they sought registration, on the basis of their registration by the Central Council Homeopathy Central Council Act 1973, ("the Central Council Act"), now the National Commission for Homeopathy, the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioners do not deny that to practice in Maharashtra they need to be entered on the Register maintained by the Maharashtra Council of Homeopathy. The challenge in the amended Petition is also to a notice dtd. 15/11/2021 issued by the Public Health Department of the 6th Respondent, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM"). A copy of that notice is annexed. The notice says that because the Petitioners' names are not recorded by the Maharashtra Homeopathy Council, they are not entitled to practice homeopathy in Maharashtra.