A. T. ZAMBRE AND OTHERS versus KARTAR KRISHNA SHASHTRI

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 17-12-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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. 
The 
1Maharashtra 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 en-
listment to those medical practitioners 'who have been regularly practising on 
4th November, 1951 in the Bombay area of the State' had no rational nexus 
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 liveli-
hood, 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 distinc-
tion on the basis of the area in which he had been practising could be made. 
[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 sub-
sedion (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 Consti-
tution of fndia and declaring that sub-s. ( 5) of s. 17 of the Mahara-
shtra 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 res-
pondel)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 Coun

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.