PRASANNA SUDARSHAN SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the month of June, 1988, one Prasanna Sudarshan Shah, a citizen had addressed a letter to the then Chief Justice of this Court raising a fundamental question relating to conduct of Pathological Laboratories in the State of Maharashtra. The letter was converted into a Writ Petition and on 6th August, 1988. Rule was issued and certain directions were given.

(2.) ON 15th December, 1988, the Assistant Government Pleader then appearing made a statement to this Court that the necessary Rules inter alia prescribing educational qualifications in the matter of conduct of Pathological Laboratories would be expeditiously framed by the State Government. On 21st November, 1989, notice was directed to be issued to the Medical Council and the University of Bombay. Since requisite rules were not framed as per the Order passed on 23rd February 1996, the Director of Medical Education and Research was directed to appear before this Court on 27th February, 1996 and to inform this Court about steps taken by the Government in framing appropriate rules pursuant to the assurance given by the then Assistant Government Pleader to this Court. On 18th June, 1996, a statement in writing was made by the Director of Medical Education and Research, Government of Maharashtra, inter alia stating that Diploma Courses in Medical Laboratory Technology (for short, 'DMLT') in the State of Maharashtra are controlled by Board of Technical Education under the Department of Higher Technical Education and a University of Bombay, and other respective Universities in the State according to their areas. The Director of Medical Education and Research, Government of Maharashtra, further stated that in the existing circumstances he was not concerned with granting of permission to any Private Institute for conduct of DMLT or recognising any degree or qualification conferred by any Private Institute conducting DMLT. He has further stated that the control over the laboratories practicing Pathology Diagnosis Services vests with the Food & Drug Administration Department. From the said statement, it has become evident that no rules have so far been framed for establishment and conduct of Private Institutions giving training in DMLT in the State of Maharashtra and the grievance made by the Petitioner is absolutely genuine and justified.

(3.) FROM the facts on record, it appears that one Telareja residing at Wadala, Bombay, has been running an institute in the name of 'Academy of Medical Technology' and giving Diploma Certificates to various persons after charging handsome fees. As per the statement made before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bombay, the said Telareja admitted that he possessed educational qualification of Ayurveda Ratna from Pune Mahavidyalaya and since the year 1972, he has established his own laboratory in the name of 'Telareja Laboratories' and conducts an institute in the name of 'Academy of Medical Technology' without taking any licence under the law for establishment and conduct thereof. Mr.Telareja has further admitted that in the institute run by him, he imparts training for a period of one year for examination of blood, urine, stool etc., and after holding examinations, issues certificates to the trainees who thereafter establish and conduct pathological laboratories as qualified persons though there is no syllabus, rules or regulations even framed by him for imparting such training. On his own admission, Mr.Telareja was prosecuted twice. In such state of affairs, the Petitioner has raised the fundamental question relating to establishment and conduct of Institutions for imparting education in DMLT.