BANGLADESH HOMEOPATHIC PRACTITIONERS
ORDINANCE, 1983 (XLI OF 1983)
—12(1) (c) and 16(4)
direction of the Government dated April 6, 1989 is not in terms of section 12(i)(c)
of the Ordinance. The resolution of the Board dated April 13, 1989, does not
also show that these terms are volatile of any of the provisions of the
Ordinance or detrimental to public interest.
right to get approval to recognition is not an absolute one, but subject to
approval of the Government. The Government may exercise such discretion either
by according or withholding the approval.
power conferred by section 12(I)(c) is strictly limited. The Government can no doubt
‘prohibit the doing of anything proposed to be done” by the Board, but it can
do so only if it is of opinion that the doing of the act would not be in
conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance or in any way against public
Quabil Ahmed Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and another, 12 BLD (HCD)
writ in the nature of mandamus can in no case be issued to compel the manner in
which the discretion is to be exercised. So the contention of the petitioner
that the Government is under an obligation to accord approval under section
16(4) of the Ordinance cannot be sustained.
Quabil Ahmed Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and another 12 BLD (HCD) 340.
Ordinary and natural meaning of the expression “subject to the approval of the
Government as used in section 16(4)” obviously means that the Government may or
may not approve the recommendation or decision in the nature of recommendation
or decision in the nature of recommendation. It is obvious that for enabling
the Government to exercise this discretion of approval or disapproval of the Board’s
proposal in this respect by the Government. the Homeopathic Board by necessary
implication has to send to the Government various particulars and information,
specially mentioned in section 16(2) and any further information if any,
required y the Government.[Per Fazie
Hussain Muhammad Habibur Rahman, .J.]
the Government failed to grant approval to the decision of the Board for
according recognition to the proposed colleges without any ground or reason and
since respondent No. I has not been contesting the Rule, respondent No. I
should be directed to grant approval to the said decision of the Board as
respondent No. I is required by the aforesaid provision of section 16(4) of the
Ordinance to grant such approval within a reasonable time and not to delay the
matterarbitrarily for indefinite period. [Per
Kazi Ebadul Hoque].
Kabil Ahmed Vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and another, 12 BLD (HCD) 129.