Pintukumar Amal Sarkar vs The Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9590 Bom

                                      1                934-WP.6422-20.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     934 WRIT PETITION NO.6422 OF 2020

                         PINTUKUMAR AMAL SARKAR
                                  VERSUS
                       THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                                      ...
           Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Joslyn Anthony Menezes.
               ASGI for Respondent No.1 : Mr. A. G. Talhar.
            AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar.
            Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : Mr. M. S. Taur.
                                      ...

                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, AND
                                       S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 22.07.2021

PER COURT :-

1. We have heard the learned advocates for the petitioner

and respondent Nos.4 to 6. The learned AGP has addressed us

on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel

and having perused the petition paper book and having gone

through the judgment delivered by the learned Division Bench

of this Court in the matter of Nageshwar Basantram Dubey Vs.

Union of India and others along with group of petitions, 2007

(3) Mh.L.J. 275, the grievance of the petitioner is narrowed

2 934-WP.6422-20.odt

down only to the extent as to whether he could use the prefix

'Dr.' and whether he could prescribe medicines or inject saline

or practice Homeopathy.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits, on

instructions, that the petitioner would tender a specific

undertaking sworn before an Oath Administering Officer, on or

before 05.08.2021 stating therein as under :

(a) He will not use the prefix 'Dr.'.

(b) He would not practice Homeopathy.

(c) He would practice only Naturopathy and

Homeo Electropathy.

(d) He would not issue prescription for prescribing

medicines of any nature whatsoever, which

would fall within the realm of Allopathy or

Homeopathy or any such profession by which a

practitioner could prescribe allopathic or

equivalent medicines.

(e) He would prescribe only herbs covered by

Naturopathy and by Homeo Electropathy.

                                        3                 934-WP.6422-20.odt




            (f)      He would not do any act which would be

impermissible in view of the judgment delivered

by this Court in the case of Nageshwar

Basantram Dubey (supra).

4. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed as

under :

(i) The impugned notices dated 05.09.2019 and

17.01.2020 stand quashed and set aside.

(ii) The petitioner would perform only those acts

which are enlisted herein above and are

permitted in view of the judgment of this Court

in the matter of Nageshwar Basantram Dubey

(supra).

(iii) He will abide by all the contents of the

undertaking that he would tender in this Court

on or before 05.08.2021, in light of paragraph 2

herein above.

(iv) If he is apprehended of performing any act

which is prohibited in view of this order, he

4 934-WP.6422-20.odt

would thereafter refrain from practicing in

Naturopathy and Homeo Electropathy, in future.

(v) He would not display the '+' sign on the name

board of his clinic where he would practice

Naturopathy and Homeo Electropathy.

(vi) He would also not display any specific logo as

may be prescribed by the M.C.I. for it's

registered practitioners.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

...

vmk/-