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

- **Citation:** [1981] 2 S.C.R. 398
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1980-12-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1572 of 1970
- **Bench:** A. D. KosHAL, Baharul Islam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-t-zambre-and-others-v-kartar-krishna-shashtri-8102
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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 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
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.
[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]

## Text

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 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
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.
[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 1970From 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 observations 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).
'
•
•
'
·"
•
•
•
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
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.