Bombay High Court
Dr Ambadas Narsingrao Kadam vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 May, 2021
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, N. R. Borkar
wp-1950/21.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1950 OF 2021
Dr. Ambadas N. Kadam. ..Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents.
Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Aruna S. Pai, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
N. R. BORKAR, JJ.
Date : May 13, 2021.
[Vacation Court]
P. C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner. The Petitioner is
approaching this Court with the present petition with a limited prayer.
The few facts necessary for considering the prayer of the Petitioner are
as follows :
. The Petitioner is a medical practitioner. He obtained his
degree of medicine in the year 1995. The certificate of registration was
granted to him in the year 1997 and the additional certificate was
granted to him on 27th March 2001 by the Maharashtra Medical Council,
Mumbai and permitted the Petitioner to practice in the field of medicine
and a necessary renewal certificate is issued by the Maharashtra Medical
Council, Mumbai on 4th July 2018.
With these necessary certificates, the Petitioner started his
patilsr 1/ 4
wp-1950/21.
practice by opening a hospital in Pusegaon, taluka Khatav, district Satara.
As the competent authorities found that the Petitioner has committed
certain acts in violation of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act, the
Petitioner was charged and tried for the said violations. Though the
learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 14 th November 2011
in Regular Criminal Case No.17 of 2005 recorded the conviction, the
appellate Court, i.e., the Additional Sessions Judge, Waduj in Criminal
Appeal No.21 of 2011 found that the prosecution has failed to establish
its case against the Petitioner and by assigning reasons, Criminal Appeal
No.21 of 2011 was allowed. Resultantly, the judgment and order dated
14th November 2011 passed by the learned Magistrate, Waduj in RCC No.
17 of 2005 was set aside. The Petitioner then thought it fit to start his
medical practice afresh. He sought permission form the competent
authorities to replace his earlier sonography machine, which was
outdated and in-operational. The Petitioner then approached the
authority by filing necessary application so as to run the hospital and
sonography centre. The application was submitted to the authority on
23rd January 2019. Copy of the application submitted to the authority is
placed on record at page nos. 82 to 89 along with necessary forms. As
the application was pending before the authorities concerned for a long
time, the Petitioner submitted an application under the RTI Act so as to
know whether the State is desirous of filing any appeal against the
patilsr 2/ 4
wp-1950/21.
judgment and order passed by the appellate Court. It came to the
knowledge of the Petitioner that the Law & Judiciary Department by its
communication dated 23rd October 2020 informed the learned Additional
Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, Waduj, district
Satara that the Government does not consider the proposal for filing of
appeal as a fit case and the papers were returned to the office of the
Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor, Waduj.
When the Petitioner again approached the authority to know the
progress in his application, it was informed to him by the communication
dated 15th February 2021 that the said application is pending before the
competent authority and the same was kept before the Advisory
Committee on 5th February 2021 for seeking necessary guidance from
the senior officials and the application is kept in abeyance till guidance
from the senior officials is received.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in view of these peculiar circumstances, where there is
surge of cases due to pandemic Covid-19, if the Petitioner is permitted to
start the sonography centere, it would only serve a better purpose and
cause of the public in general. It is also submitted by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner that except the reason that the application is kept in
abeyance for seeking guidance from the senior officials, there is nothing
adverse against the petitioner in the communication.
patilsr 3/ 4
wp-1950/21.
3. Learned APP appearing for the State submitted that for
want of instructions she is unable to make submission on the merit of the
matter.
4. Considering the above-referred facts, we are of the opinion
that it would be appropriate to direct the competent authorities to
decide the application dated 23rd January 2019 on its own merits. There
is also considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel of the
petitioner that in these prevailing circumstances, if the application is
considered positively, the Petitioner would be in a position to serve the
public at large.
5. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that
the petition can be disposed of by directing the competent authority, i.e.,
Respondent No.2 before whom the application of petitioner is pending
to decide the same as early as possible and not later than six weeks from
today. Needless to state that the authority is at liberty to decide the said
application on its own merits. The petition is accordingly disposed of
with the above mentioned directions.
6. All concerned to act upon the authenticated copy of this
order. Learned APP to communicate this order to the respondent
authorities.
[N R. Borkar, J.] [Prasanna B. Varale, J.]
patilsr 4/ 4
