A. T. ZAMBRE AND OTHERS v. KARTAR KRISHNA SHASHTRI

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A. D. Koshal
Baharul Islam
Judgment Date: 1980-12-17
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. T. Zambre and Others

Respondents

Kartar Krishna Shastri

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M. C. Bhandare
• C. K. Sucharita
• M. N. Shroff

Counsels for Respondents

• Nemo

Case Synopsis & Summary

The case concerns the registration and enlistment of medical practitioners under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. Clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 17 provides that any person not qualified for registration who proves to the satisfaction of the Committee that he was on the 4th day of November 1941 regularly practising the Ayurvedic or Unani System of Medicine in the Bombay area of the State, but whose name was not entered in the register, shall be entitled to have his name entered in the register on application and payment of the prescribed fee. The respondent, an Ayurvedic Doctor who migrated to Bombay, sought registration; his application was rejected and his appeal dismissed. The High Court struck down section 18(2)(b)(ii) as unconstitutional, holding that it offends Article 14. The Supreme Court, hearing an appeal against this order, held that section 18(2)(b)(ii) is in pari materia with section 17(5) and, like the earlier provision, violates Article 14. Relying on the observations in Rukmani Hoondraj Hingorani v. The Appellate Authority under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 (1969) 71 Bom. LR. 71 (77), the Court noted that requiring practitioners to have been practising on 4 November 1951 in the Bombay area has no rational nexus with the object of enabling older, less qualified practitioners to continue practice. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs since the respondent did not appear to contest it.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 14Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, Section 17(5)Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, Section 18(2)(b)(ii)Bombay Medical Practitioners Act, 1938Bombay General Clauses Act, Section 3(6)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

pari materia
rational nexus (test under Article 14)
equality before law principle (Article 14)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that section 18(2)(b)(ii), read with section 17(5), imposes a discriminatory requirement that a practitioner must have been regularly practising on 4 November 1941 in the Bombay area to be enlisted. They argued this restriction has no rational nexus with the Act’s object of preserving practice for older, less qualified doctors and excludes practitioners outside the Bombay area, violating Article 14. They relied on the rationale in Hingorani that such restrictions must bear a rational connection to the objective and cannot be geography-based discrimination. They urged that the Legislature could have set a general requirement of years of practice or a pre-date without geographic restrictions, thereby avoiding arbitrary classifications.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the provision constitutes a legitimate, geographically anchored classification connected to the administrative framework for registration and to preserve medical practice within the Bombay area; they argued that the historical cut-off serves a rational approach to continuity of practice and the regulation of the profession, and that the Act’s object would be impeded without such a criterion.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rukmani Hoondraj Hingorani v. The Appellate Authority under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961	(1969) 71 Bom. LR 71 (77)	Positive	The Supreme Court adopted the observations from Hingorani that restricting enlistment to those practising on 4 November 1951 in the Bombay area has no rational nexus with the Act’s objective and violates Article 14.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

#### • ### • ##### ' A B c D E F G H 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. 398 A. T. ZAMBRE AND OTHERS _v._ KARTAR KRISHNA SHASHTRI _December_ 17, 1980 [A. D. KosHAL AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] _Constitution_ _of India_ 1950, _Art._ 14 & _The Maharashtra Medical Practitioners_ _Act,_ 1961, _S._ _11(5)-Whether_ _unconstitutional._ 1 The Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act 1961, contains provisions for registration and enlistment of medical practitioners. Clause (ii) of sub-section _(S)_ 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_ _.4utl1ority under the_ _lV!aliarashtra_ _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 Born. LR. 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 [40QC.HJ ### • ###### ' ## • ##### ' A. T. ZAMBRE _v._ K. K. SHASTRI _(Koshal,_ J.) 399 2. The provisions of section 18(2)(b)(ii) being in _pari_ _materia_ with subsedion _(5)_ of section 17, the observations made in the above case apply als<> **to** **this** **sub-se.ction.** **This** **sub-section** is, **therefore, violative of Article** **14** **of** the Constitution. [401G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1572 of 1970 From the Judgment and Order dated 8-11-1968 of the Bombay High Court in S.C.A. No. 2087 /68. _M._ _C._ _Bhandare,_ C. _K._ _Sucharita_ and _M._ _N._ _Shroff_ for the Appellant. _Nemo_ for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KosHAL J., This is au appeal by special leave against the judgment dated November 8, 1968 of a Division lknch of the High Court of Bombay allowing a petition under articles 226 aud 227 of the Constitution of fndia and declaring that sub-s. ( 5) of s. 17 of the Maharashtra lvledical Practitioners Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the: Act) is _u/tr."_ _vires_ of article 14 of the Constitution of India. The facts are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. The respondel)t hails from Uttar Pradesh. In 1940 he obtained the degree of "Ayurved Shastri" from the All Indm Adarsh Vidwat Parishad, Kanpur. On Novemb;~r 12, 1940 his name was listed by the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh, in the register of Vaids and Hakims. He practised as a Vaid in Agra thereafter upto 1955 when he migrated to Bhopal where he was registered as an Ayurvedic Doctor by the Medical Council of the Government of Bhopal under the Bhopal Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1935. He migrated to Bombay in 1962 and started practising there as an Aynrvedic Doctor. However, in the meantime, i.e., on November 23, 1961, the Act came into force, except for Chapter VI thereof which came ilJ.to operation on November 1, 1966. The respondent's application for registration as a medical practitioner made to the Committee of the Medical Board of Unani Sy-stem of Medicine under sub-s. (5) of s. 17 of the Act (although none of the clauses of that sub-section had anything to do with it) was rejected and his appeal filed to the Board was also dismissed on September 30, 1964. Clause (ii) of the said sub-s. ( 5) with which we are concerned provides that any person not being a person qualified for registration under sub-ss. (3) or (4) who.proves to the satisfaction of the Committee appointed under sub-s. (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 ill the register maintained under the Bombay Medical A **B** ##### c **D** E F **G** H _r_ 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R. .A Practioners Act, 1938" shall be entitled to have his name entered in the register on making an application on the prescribed form, on payment of a fee of Rs. 10/- and production of such docnments as may be prescribed by the rules. The expression "Bombay area of the State of Maharashtra" is defined i'.n sub-s. ( 6) of s. 3 of the Bombay General Clauses Act to mean "the area of the State of Maharashtra B excluding the Vidarbha region and the Hyderabad area of that State." ' #### • #### c D E F G H A contention was raised before the Higb Court on the strength of _Rukmani Hoondraj Hingorani_ v. _The Appellate Authority under the_ _Malzarashtru_ _Medical Practitioners Act,_ 1961 (1) that sub-s. (5) of s. 17 of the Act fell foul of article 14 of the Constitution, a'nd that contention wa~ accepted. We may usefully refer to the following observa tions made in the decision just above cited : "Confining our attention, however, to medical practitioners practising in the Bombay area of the State, we fmd it difficult to appreciate why the rigbt of enlistment should have bee'.n restricted to those who were regularly practising on 4th November 1951, 'in the Bombay area of the State'. Since the object 0f the Legislature was to allow medical practice by those less qualified persons who were too old to choose alternative mea:ns of livelihood, 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 fat. It was thus open to the Legislature to provide that, out of unregistered and unlisted medical practitioners who were practising in the Bombay area of the State, only those would be entitled to have their names included in the list who were practising regularly from before the 4th of November, 1951. It is, however, not possible to find any rational basis for the provision that medical practitioners in the Bombay area of the State, i'n order to be entitled to enlistment, must not only have been practising regularly from 4th November, 1951, but must have been practising on that day 'in the Bombay area of the State'. The provision that medical practitioners must have b;ien practising on 4th November, 1951 in the Bombay area of the State has no rational nexus with the object of the Legislature which was to ensure that medical practitioners, who were not fully qualified but who were too old to choose alternative means of livelihood, should not be deprived of their practice. 1. (1969) 71 Bombay Law Reporter 71 (77). ###### ' # ·" #### • ### • We find ourselves in complete agreement with these observations which were made i'n relation to sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 18 of the Act. The provisions of that sub-clause bemg G in _pari_ _materia_ with sub-s. (5) of s. 17 of the Act, they apply fully to that sub-;;ection which must therefore be held to be violative of article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly we have no hesitation in upholding the impugned judgment and dismiss this appeal, but with no order as to costs as the respondent has not appeared before us to contest it. H N.V.K. _Appeal_ _dismissed._ A. T. ZAMBRE V. K. K. SHASTRI _(Koshal,_ _!.)_ 401 In order to illustrate the discriminatory nature of the provision contained in s. 18(2) (b)(ii), we shall take imaginary instances of five persons who were all practising in the Bombay area of the State at the time of their applications under s. 18 (i.e., on or before 31st March, 1965) and who were not already enlisted and were not entitled to registration under the Act. Let us suppose that one of them, A, was practising continuously in Bombay City from 1950 to 1963, when he applied under s. 18 of the Act. Since on 4th November, 1951 he was practising regularly 'in the Bombay area of the State', he is clearly entitled to have his name included in the list. Let us take another person B who practised in Poona from 1950 to 1954 and in Bombay City from 1954 to 1963 when he applied under s. 18. He is also entitled to enlistment because Poona falls in the Bombay area of the State. We may then take the instance of C who practised in Nagpur from 1950 to 1954 and in Bombay City from 1954 to 1963. He would not be entitled to have his name included in the list, because on 4th November, 1951 he was regnlarly practising in Nagpur which, though sitrn1tcd in Maharashtra, is not included in the Bombay area of the State. We will next take the instance of D who practised i'.n Baroda, then a part of the Bombay State, from 1950 to 1954 and tkreafter in Bombay City from 1954 to 1963. He is also not entitled to enlistment, since Baroda in outside the State of Maharashtra. Similar would be the pos;tion of another person E who practised in Bhopal from 1950 to 1954 and then in Bombay City from 1954 to 1963. No rational explanation can be given of why A and B should rereive the said concession from the Legislature and should be able to continue their practice and why C, D and E should not receive the concession and should be deprived of their practice." A B c D E F