KAVITA PRAVIN TILWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as also the learned APP for the State. By this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction declaring that the Maharashtra Act No. 64 of 1977, insofar as it includes medical practitioner within the definition of the expression "commercial establishment" under section 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 is unconstitutional. By the said amendment, a medical practitioner who is duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Medical Council has been included in the definition of the said expression. It is submitted by the petitioner that prior to the amendment, medical practitioners were not included in the definition of the said expression. However, subsequently by the said amendment, all professionals have been included in the definition of the said expression. The petitioner, who is a doctor by profession, has invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in (Dr. Devendra M. Surti v. The State of Gujarat, 1969 AIR(SC) 63) and also of a Division Bench of this Court in (Narendra Keshrichand Fuladi and anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 1 BCR 460). She also relied on another Division Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1232 of 1995 (M/s. A.F. Ferguson & Company & others v. The State of Maharashtra & another) decided on 5-5-2006. She has also relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1731 of 2002 (Dr. (Smt.) Shubhada Motwani v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) decided on 12-6-2014.

(2.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that some time may be given to him to file affidavit in reply. In our view, since the issue is squarely covered by the aforestated judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the question of now permitting the Corporation to file an affidavit does not arise since the petition was filed in 2013 and was immediately served on the Corporation thereafter.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Corporation has submitted that in this case the petitioner had registered herself under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. However, thereafter she had not renewed the said registration. He submitted that, therefore, it was now not open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the said section.