ORDER
G. H. Guttal, J.
1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are by students who completed the requisite training for the Diploma Course known as 'Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural)' under the Scheme laid down by the Government of Maharashtra. They seek a direction (i) to the Government of Maharashtra that the Diploma be awarded to them and (ii) to the Maharashtra Medical Council that the petitioners be registered as Medical Practitioners under section 16 of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act.
2. The historical background of the case and the facts leading to the petitioners' right to the reliefs are set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 below. The facts of the case of Chandra-shekhar Karve, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2794 of 1989 are stated in details in paragraph 5. The cases of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 3058, 3908, 4896 and 3354, all of 1989, are identical in all respects and therefore, their cases are briefly set out in paragraph 6 below.
(3) On 28th September, 1979, the Government of Maharashtra, by a Resolution, started a three year Diploma course in Medicine, designed to serve the rural population. The course commenced in the Civil Hospitals at Kolhapur, Ratnagiri, Nanded, Akola and Dhule. The duration of three years included six months' 'apprenticeship'. Between 1980 and 1984, students were admitted and they completed the course. So far, the Diploma course did not have a name. By the Resolution of the Government in Urban Development and Public Health Department, bearing No. MED-1080/3265/PH-7dated 8th September, 1981, the Government directed that students who complete the required training and apprenticeship satisfactorily, shall be awarded 'Diploma in Rural Medicine and Surgery, i.e. D. R. M. S.'. The qualification of D. R. M. S. did not have a place in the Schedule to the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, Maharashtra Act No. XLVI of 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 16(3) of the Act entitles the persons holding the qualifications specified in the Schedule to have their names registered as medical practitioners maintained by the Maharashtra Medical Council under subsections (1) and (2) of section 16 of the Act. In order to effectuate the object of granting the Diploma, the Government of Maharashtra. in exercise of its authority under section 28(1) of the Act and in consultation with the Maharashtra Medical Council, hereinafter referred to as the M. M. C., by the Notification dated 16th July, 1984, amended the Schedule and introduced entry No. 17 which reads 'Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural) [D. M. & S. (Rural)] granted by the Government of Maharashtra'. Meanwhile, the M. M. C. brought to the notice of the Government of Maharashtra that there is no subject known as Rural Medicine. Pursuant to the report of the Committee appointed by it, the Government, by a Resolution No. MED-1082/3333/PH-7 dated 4th August, 1982 decided that the nomenclature of the course 'Diploma in Rural Medicine and Surgery (D. R. M. & S.)' should be changed into 'Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural) i.e. D. M. & S. (Rural)'. Although it was in 1982 that the Government of Maharashtra decided to name the qualification as Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural), its Resolution dated 16th July, 1984 introduced in the Schedule the qualification with the name as 'Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (D. M. & S.)'.
4. On 1st September, 1981, an institute known as Dnyaneshwar Vidyapeeth of Pune inaugurated a College known as Abhinav Arogya Mahavidyalaya. The College started a course of education in allopathy, consisting of 4 1/2 years' duration, similar to the course of M. B. B. S. conducted by the Pune University.The first examination was proposed to be held after 1 1/2 years. The second examination was proposed to be held after further period of 1 1/2 years and so on until the course was completed. The students for this course were selected after written examination and interview. The qualification was named 'Arogya Mitra'. The teaching staff consisted of retired but experienced teachers from Government Medical Colleges, University Examiners and so on. The course 'Arogya Mitra' was not recognised by the Government or any University. The petitioners herein took admission to this course in the expectation that the course would receive recognition. In 1983, the Government appointed one-man-committee consisting Dr. G. V. Jogtekar, the then Dean of B. J. Medical College, Pune, to inspect the facilities such as teaching staff, standard of education etc. and make a report for the purpose of granting recognition to the said course. A report was in fact made. On 25th July, 1985, the Government of Maharashtra wrote a letter to the Managing Trustee of the Abhinav Arogya Mahavidyalaya expressing its inclination to consider the request of Abhinav Arogya Mahavidyalaya to admit their students to the Government's Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural) and enquired whether the Abhinav Arogya Mahavidyalaya would agree to close down the institution entirely, furnish yearwise list of students and ther addresses, undertakings by the students that they will practice only in the rural areas of the Maharashtra and so on. On 6th August, 1985, the Government passed a Resolution bearing No. MED 1684/1629/ MED-4. The Resolution sets out the Government's resolve to afford to the students the opportunity of completing the Diploma course on the lines of D. R. M. S. course introduced in 1979. The training was to be imparted at S. R. T. S. Medical College, Ambejogai and at the Government Medical College, Miraj. In September, 1985, all such students of Abhinav Arogya Mahavidyalaya including the petitioners were admitted to the Diploma course. Under the Scheme of this Resolution, the students in the 1st and 2nd year of the Arogya Mitra course were to undergo 2 years' training and those in the 3rdand 4th year of Arogya Mitra, 1 1/2 years' training in the two Medical Colleges. Those who were to undergo 2 years' training were admitted to the S. R. T. R. Medical College, Ambejogai and those who were to undergo 1 1/2 years' training were sent to the Government Medical College, Miraj. The petitioners passed the examinations and were sent for internship at various Civil Hospitals like Alibag, Ratnagiri, Jalna etc.
The Resolution dated 6th August, 1985 evidences the Government's resolve to salvage the careers of the students who joined the Abhinav Arogya Mahavidyalaya to become doctors, but found that the college did not receive Government's recognition. The Government's responsibility under the Resolution was confined to the students listed in the annexure to the Resolution. The Petitioners are admittedly so listed.
5. Chandrashekhar Karve, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2794 of 1989 had completed 4 years' training in Abhinav Arogya Mahavidyalaya when, on 2nd September, 1985, he joined the Government Medical College at Miraj in accordance with the Resolution set out above. By June, 1987, he had passed three examinations, and had been studying for 6 years in different colleges. In August, 1987, the Director of Medical Education of the Government of Maharashtra and the Dean, B. J. Medical College, Pune asked the petitioner to undergo internship. Accordingly, on 5th August, 1987, the petitioner was appointed to undergo the internship. The Civil Surgeon, Alibag, in whose Hospital the petitioner was undergoing internship, wrote a letter on 8th September, 1987 certifying therein that the petitioner was undergoing internship at the Civil Hospital since 8th September, 1987 for a period of six months. He recommended that the petitioner be granted temporary registration as a medical practitioner by the M. M. C. In the second week of September. 1987, the petitioner approached the M. M. C. on the basis of the letter dated 8th September, 1987 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Alibag. The M. M. C. refused to accept the application. In February, 1988, the petitioner completed sixmonths' internship as stipulated by the Government. On 2nd February, 1988, the Civil Surgeon, Alibag certified that the petitioner had satisfactorily completed the internship. On 29th March, 1988 the Dean, Government Medical College, Miraj issued a comprehensive certificate. He certified that the petitioner was (i) a bona fide student of the College from 5th September, 1985 to 2nd February, 1988; (ii) that he had passed IIIrd (final) D. R. M. S. Examination and (iii) had satisfactorily completed the compulsory rotating internship in Civil Hospital, Alibag. Finally, the Dean, Government Medical College, Miraj certified that 'He js eligible for the award of the D. R. M. S. Diploma'.
The petitioner approached the M. M. C. with the application for permanent registration. The council repeatedly refused to accept the application form for permanent registration.
6. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3058 of 1989 joined Arogya Mitra course in 1983 and in September, 1985 had completed nearly two years' training in Arogya Mitra course. She too passed the final examinations of the Diploma course from the Government Medical College, Miraj and completed the internship which have been duly certified by the Dean of the College, Miraj and the Civil Surgeon, Alibag respectively.
The Writ Petition No. 3908 of 1989 is by five petitioners. Each of them passed the final year examination of the Diploma course from the Government Medical College, Miraj between 1985 and 1988. They completed their internships from different Civil Hospitals of the Maharashtra Government in 1989.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4896 of 1989 passed the final year examination from the Government medical College, Miraj in June, 1987 and completed the internship on 2nd February, 1988 from the Civil Hospital, Alibag.
The Writ Petition No. 3354 of 1989 is by 26 petitioners. All of them passed the final examination in June, 1987 and completed their internships on 2nd February, 1988 from different Government Hospitals.
7. The M. M. C. has made an Affidavit in Reply affirmed some time in October, 1989.It is affirmed by Achyut Kashinath Karekar, the Registrar of the M. M. C. He does not state in the Affidavit whether its contents are based on the record or on his personal knowledge. Nor has he stated which part of the Affidavit is based on the record, which part is on the personal knowledge and belief held by him. He expresses ignorance about the training programme or the course to which the Petitioners were admitted. In regard to the internship, the Respondent No. 2 states that under the law, internship programme without registration is illegal and those who undergo such programme are liable to be punished. According to him, the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted and punished for treating the patients without registration before the internship commenced. For this reason, the Respondent No. 2 refused to accept the fact of internship. In a nutshell, the Affidavit made by the Respondent No. 2 is a picture of arguments, assertions and absence of facts.
8. The petitioners' case is that they have completed the requisite training in Medicine and Surgery in accordance with the Scheme of the Government of Maharashtra, including the internship of six months. They have, therefore, a right to the Diploma known as 'Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural), i.e. D. M. and S. (Rural)'. Secondly, the M. M. C. has arbitrarily and wrongfully denied to them the registration which is necessary before they practice Medicine and Surgery.
On the other hand, the M. M. C. urged that the training received by the petitioners was not of the standard approved by the M. M. C. The internship completed by the petitioners was without 'provisional' registration and is, therefore, not valid. They dispute the petitioners' right to registration.
9. It is undisputed that the petitioners who were stranded midway in their efforts to acquire the qualification of Arogya Mitra and practise as doctors were rescued by the Government of Maharashtra by accepting the responsibility to permit them to complete the course on the lines of D. R. M. S., started in 1979. The Government of Maharashtra has not even filed an affidavit to dispute thepetitioners' claim that they are entitled to be awarded the Diploma. The course which the Government started in 1979, was D. R. M. S. and not D. M. and S. (Rural), The Schedule to the M. M. C. Act also includes the qualification known as D. M. and S. (Rural). However, there is no difference in the content of the two courses. The same syllabus, teaching and internship mark the two courses. The petitioners have received the education which entitled them to the Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural). This position is not disputed by the Government of Maharashtra who possess the authority to award this Diploma.
10. The important question is whether the M, M. C. has not arbitrarily refused to register the petitioners under section 16 of the M. M. C. Act, The M. M. C. claims that it has a right to refuse registration because the course was conducted without its consent and it had not approved it. This raises the question of the nature, content and extent of the authority of the M. M. C. in regard to registration of medical practitioners.
11. There are three legislative Acts whichgovern medical practice in Maharashtra.They are the Indian Medical Council Act,1956, the Maharashtra Medical Council Act,,1965 and the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 --the I. M. C. Act for short -- created the Indian Medical Council to be constituted by the Central Government (Section 3 of the I. M. C. Act). It is a body corporate known as the Medical Council of India Section 6 of the I. M. C. Act. The medical qualifications granted by the institutions in India and set out in the first Schedule to the Act are the recognised qualifications for the purpose of the I. M. C. Section 11 of the I. M. C. Act, The Schedule is amendable by following the procedure laid down in sub-section (2) of section 11 of the I. M. C. Act. The recognised medical qualifications granted by medical institutions outside India are in the second Schedule Section 12 of the I. M. C. Act. The third category of recognised medical qualification includes those granted by certain medical institutions now forming part of Pakistan or Burma, Section 13 of the I. M. C. Act. Thepossession of the medical qualifications included in the Schedules annexed to the Act 'shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Medical Register' Section 15(1) of the I. M. C. Act.
Every medical institution or University granting the recognised qualification shall supply to the Medical Council of India the information as to the course of study. The Medical Council of India has the power to inspect such institution for considering recognition section 16 and 17 of the I. M. C. Act.
The Medical Council of India is bound to maintain in the prescribed manner a register of medical practitioners known as the Indian Medical Register, containing the names of all persons enrolled on any State Medical Register on the basis of the copies supplied by the State Medical Council. An Indian citizen possessing a medical qualification granted by a foreign institution, who is required to undergo practical training if required by section 13(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, requires a provisional registration in a State Medical Register in order to enable him to practise in the approved institution. Similarly, a person who has passed the qualifying examination of any medical institution in India 'shall be entitled to be registered provisionally in a State Medical Register for the purpose of enabling him to be engaged in employment in resident medical capacity' sub-section (2) of section 25 of the I. M. C. Act. A person so registered provisionally shall be entitled to registration in the State Medical Register upon completion of the practical training sub-section (4) of section 25 of the I. M. C. Act.
12. The relevance of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, to this case, is that it prohibits the medical practice by any person unless his name is registered inter alia under the M. M. C. Act. Section 3 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961.
13. The Maharashtra Medical Council Act hereinafter referred to as the M. M. C. Act, was enacted for the purpose of 'regulating the registration of persons practising modern scientific medicine in the State ofMaharashtra' (Preamble -- M. M. C. Act). The M. M. C. is constituted by the State Government under section 3 of the Act by a notification published in the official gazette. It is a body corporate. Its powers have been enacted in, and circumscribed by, section 10 of the M. M. C. Act. They are very limited and confined mostly to the maintenance of the Slate Medical Register. The powers include (a) maintenance of the register of medical practitioners and to provide for the registration of medical practitioners; (b) hear appeals from the decisions of its Registrar; (c) prescribe a code of ethics for medical practitioners and (d) exercise disciplinary authority on medical practitioners (Section 10 of the M. M. C. Act).
The preparation of the register is subject matter of Chapter III of the M. M. C. Act. The Registrar shall prepare and maintain the register which shall be in the prescribed form. Section 16 of the M. M. C. Act. The conditions or prerequisites for registration under sub-section (1) of section 16 have been set out in sub-section (3) of that section. Sub-section (3) of the section 16 when analysed resolves itself into these elements :--
(i) the person must possess any of the qualification specified in the Schedule to the M. M. C. Act or aay of the Schedules to the I.M.C. Act.
(ii) such person must present to the M. M. C. the degree, diploma, licence or certificate held by him.
Once he fulfils the two conditions stated above, he 'shall..... be entitled to havehis name entered in the register' sub-section (3) of section 16 of the M. M. C. Act.
14. Now the question is whether the petitioners fulfil the conditions which entitle them to registration under section 16(1) of the M. M. C. Act. The undisputed fact is that each of them completed the course of study leading to the Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural). The letters from the Deans of the Medical Colleges at Miraj and Ambe-jogai and the certificates of completion of internship bear this out. The Government of Maharashtra by reason of its Resolution No. MED- 1080 /3265/PH-7 dated 8thSeptember, 1981 is bound to award the Diploma to the petitioners.
The qualification known as Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural) finds a placeat entry No. 17 in the Schedule of the M. M. C. Act. Therefore, the petitioners possess the qualification specified in such schedule.
Upon presentation of the Diploma to the M. M. C., the petitioners are rightfully entitled to have their names registered as medical practitioners.
We shall by this judgment direct the Government of Maharashtra to award the Diplomas to the petitioners. However, in view of the undertakings given by the petitioners to the Government, the Diploma shall stipulate that it is valid for practice only in the rural areas of Maharashtra.
15. The right to have the names registered under section 16(1) of the M. M. C. Act is subject to 'any condition laid down by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956' (Sub-section (3) of section 16 of the M. M. C. Act). In other words, if there is any other condition stipulated by the I. M. C. Act, the petitioners must fulfil such condition also. The Indian Medical Register shall contain the names of all persons who are enrolled on any State Register (Section 21(2) of the 1 M. C. Act). There are no conditions in the I. M. C. Act which the petitioners do not fulfil. None have been pointed out to us.
16. It was urged that provisional registration as a medical practitioner is a condition precedent to the practice as internee. Since the petitioners were not provisionally registered, their internship is invalid. This argument of the M. M. C. stems from a misreading of the M. M, C. Act and the I. M. C. Act. The subject of provisional registration finds place in section 19 of the M. M. C. Act. The provisional registration of a person who has qualified from any medical institution in India is governed by sub-section (2) of section 25 of the I. M. C. Act. The qualifying examination in the context of this case is the Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural). The question of provisional registration arises in the context of the situations referred to in sub-section (2) of section 25 of the I. M. C.Act. Section 19 of the M. M. C. Act refers to the provisional registration 'under section 25 of the Indian Medical Council Act' and not independently of the I. M. C. Act. Therefore, it is necessary to understand in what circumstances a person needs to have his name registered provisionally. It is only in the case of a person who has passed the qualifying examination, that the question of provisional registration arises. The petitioners are such persons. Sub-section (2) of section 25 of the I. M. C. Act enacts that such a person :-- (i) shall be entitled to be registered provisionally in a State Medical Register; (ii) for the purpose of enabling him to be engaged in employment in a resident medical capacity.
The petitioners have a right to be registered provisionally. But they may register themselves provisionally if the situation referred to at (ii) above arises. The facts of these petitions reveal that the petitioners were not called upon at any time to be engaged in the employment in a resident capacity. Their internship was not an employment in resident capacity. The 'internship' was a part of their continuing education leading to the Diploma. The conditions of the Diploma course spelt out in the Government's Resolution dated 6th August, 1985 make it clear that the petitioners were required to complete the training in the hospitals and nothing more. However, since the training proposed to be imparted was 'on the lines of the D. R. M. S. Course', the question of 'apprenticeship' referred to in the Government's Resolution No. MED-1080-3265/PH-7 dated 8th September, 1981 arose. The Government advisedly and deliberately chose the word 'apprenticeship' and not 'internship' An apprentice is a learner. The word 'apprentice' when used as a verb means to learn. As a noun it means, one who is bound to serve another person for a certain time with a view to learning an art or trade in consideration of instruction therein. It denotes a person who is learning by practical experience under skilled workers a trade, art or calling usually for a prescribed period of time. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971. Therefore, the Government of Maharashtra in using the word 'ap-prenticeship' had in mind the period of training which the Petitioners should complete before they became eligible to receive the Diploma. The word 'intern' or 'internship' when used in the context of education means 'an advanced student or recent gradaute in a professional field (as teaching) who is getting practional experience under the supervision of an experienced worker'. In the context of medical education, an 'interne' is one who after completion of an undergradaute medical curriculum serves in residence at a hospital Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971. There is, thus, a difference between the 'apprentice' and the 'interne'. It should be presumed that the Government who runs medical colleges is aware of this distinction and deliberately required the Petitioners to undergo apprenticeship which means a part of their learning for the purpose of acquisition of the Diploma. The argument of learned Counsel for the M. M. C. based on the concept of 'internship' in Graduate Medical Courses is misconceived. It proceeds on inappropriate anology. The petitioners' apprenticeship was not 'employment in a resident medical capacity'. Therefore, the petitioners did not need provisional registration. In our opinion, provisional registration was not, in the circumstances of these petitioners, a precondition to the apprenticeship.
17. The M. M. C. seeks to arrogate to itself a power which does not belong to it. Its authority is limited to registration of the petitioners. For this purpose, it ay verify (a) whether the petitioners possess the qualifications specified in the Schedule and present the Diploma; (b) whether conditions if any laid down by or under the I. M. C. Act have been complied with; (c) whether the applications are in the prescribed form and (d) whether the fees have been paid. This is the limit of the authority of the M. M. C.
Dr. Arun Bake v. Union of India, : AIR1986Bom230 , a cardiologist qualified in U. S. S. R. applied for registration. The I. M, C. insisted upon a year's practical training in India although Dr. Bakle had undergone practical training before he was awarded the degree in U. S. S. R. This Court upheld the right of Dr. Bakle for registration without undergoing training in India. The reason was that under the I. M. C. Act, the possession of the qualification included in the schedule was all that was necessary for registration.
[Section 15(1) of the I. M. C. Act :--
'Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Medical Register.']
As in the case of Dr. Bakle, in this case too, there is no provision of any law, which enjoins a person possessing the qualification specified in the Schedule to undergo practical training. Since no other conditions are prescribed, the petitioners have a right to registration.
18. The M. M. C. in its Affidavit claims that it is not bound to register the petitioners. It is necessary to remind them that they are bound by the law. Their authority is limited to registration. They cannot arrogate to themselves, the authority which does not belong to them If the law says that possession of the Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural), specified in the Schedule, entitles the petitioners to have their names registered, the M. M. C. has to register the Petitioners. The refusal to register the petitioners is arbitrary and based on the whims of a handful of persons. No rational basis for such refusal is disclosed. If the M. M. C. considers that it possesses the general power of overriding the statute in the name of what they think is sound medical education, sooner they disabuse their minds of that idea, betcr it is.
19. Learned Counsel for the M. M. C., during his arguments referred to the supposedly unsatisfactory teaching standard and training of the petitioners. He relied upon the report of the committee appointed by the M. M, C. The report of the Committee is totally irrelevant, for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioners passed out of the colleges in 1984 and the report of the Committee is of 1988. The Committee had not had the advantage of examining the conditions at the time when the petitioners were reading in the colleges. Secondly, the committee made its report after meeting the students who were repeaters. The report of the Sub-Committee shows that the inspection was perfunctory, based on examination of random papers, and without attending the practical examinations in obstetricsand Gynaecology. Such a report, made long after the petitioners had completed the course, cannot be used to discredit the petitioners.
20. The M. M. C. relies upon its Resolution dated 1st April. 1989. The Resolution is based on the report of the sub-committee to which we have made a reference in the previous paragraph. This Resolution calls upon the Government to take responsibility of training the petitioners for a further period of two years and do certain other acts. In our opinion, this resolution is of no consequence so far as the petitioners are concerned. The right of the petitioners to have themselves registered under the M. M. C. Act is subject only to 'other provisions contained in the 1. M. C. Act'. Once it is proved that the petitioners possess the qualification named in the schedule to the Act, the M. M. C. is bound to register them. The statute has conferred on the State Government the power to make rules. There is no rule which empowers the M. M. C. to impose any condition in regard to the registration. The resolution adopted by . the M. M. C. is not a rule. It has no binding effect at all. There is no power in the M. M.C. to override the statutory obligation to register the petitioners. By attempting to do so and refusing to register the petitioners, the M. M. C. has acied illegally and without authority.
21. Whatever view the M. M. C. may hold about the standard of medical education leading to the Diploma in question, the Petitioners' case that in view of the inclusion of the Diploma in the Schedule annexed to the M. M. C. Act, they have a right to be registered, is unanswerable. Although this fact is crystal clear, the M. M. C. has denied to the petitioners unreasonably, unjustly and arbitrarily the right to practise medicine in accordance with their qualifications. This has caused immense harm in terms of loss of income and five precious years, only because the M. M. C. thought that it could refuse to register them. The loss of these five years cannot be measured in terms of money, for, this is a loss of career, name and opportunity. Yet the petitioners have to be compensated by costs for the loss resulting from the unreasonable and arbitrary conduct of theM. M. C. which drove the petitioners to file these petitions. While their success in these petitions may reinstate them as doctors in the rural areas, the loss was avoidable if only the M. M. C. had acted in accordance with law. We therefore propose to award a quantified amount of costs to each of these petitioners.
22. For all these reasons, we allow these petitions and make the following order :-
(i) The State of Maharashtra, through its Director of Medical Education and Research, or other appropriate Officer, shall grant to each petitioner the 'Diploma in Medicine and Surgery (Rural)' named at serial No. 17 in the Schedule to the M. M. C. Act, 1965, in accordance with the Government Resolution No. MED 1684/1629/MED-4, Medical Education and Drugs Department dated the 6th August, 1985. The Diploma shall stipulate that it is valid for practice only in the rural areas of Maharashtra. The State of Maharashtra shall comply with this part of our order on or before Thursday, the 15th March, 1990.
(ii) The Maharashtra Medical Council, Bombay, shall supply forthwith to each petitioner the application form for registration prescribed under section 16 of the M. M. C. Act. The aforesaid application form shall be supplied within three days of the written request made by the petitioners.
(iii) The petitioners may, if they so desire, submit to the M. M. C. the application in the form received in accordance with the Order at (ii) above, along with the prescribed fee. The M. M. C. shall acknowledge in writing receipt of the application and the fee.
(iv) The M. M. C., Bombay shall within seven days of the receipt of the application for registration in accordance with the Order at (iii) above, register the applicants' names in 'the Register of Medical Practitioners in the State and issue to the petitioners forthwith upon registration, the certificate of registration in accordance with section 16(7) of the M. M. C. Act, 1965.
It is open to the M. M. C. to stipulate in the certificate that it is valid for practice in therural areas of Maharashtra only.
(v) In view of the unjust delay in the registration of the petitioners caused by the wrongful attitude of the M. M. C. and the resultant damage, expenses and suffering to the petitioners, we direct the M. M. C., Bombay to pay costs of Rs. 2,500/- to every individual petitioner, irrespective of whether the petition is filed by one individual or by more than one individual.
(vi) In order to facilitate compliance with this Order, we direct that copies of the operative part of the order shall be supplied on demand to every party to these petitions.
(vii) Subject to what is stated above, Rule is made absolute with costs as mentioned at (v) above in all the petitions. The application for stay of this order is rejected.
23. Order accordingly.