RITESH JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed projecting a plea that the Petitioners are entitled to carry on practice in the field of health management.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners in the different writ petitions.

(3.) Perusing the different writ petitions, we see that not even in one, there is any clear disclosure of a cause of action on the basis of which, a judicial authority could take cognizance of any allegation of any act or omission referable to any legal right including a constitutional right. We say this because all the writ petitions are founded on the plea that though Petitioners are admittedly not authorized to practice modern medicine, Homeopathy, Ayurveda, Unani or Natnuropathy or any other system governed by different statutes; they are, according to them, entitled to carry on with the practice of what they call as alternate system of omedicine. It is attempted to be pleaded that there are medical systems which do not fall under any of the groups of medical management or medical systems which are governed through the statutory provisions which are ow in force in India. In that context, it is pointed out that the activities of the Petitioners cannot be demonstrated as one that is forbidden. In support thereof, Petitioners rely on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 2957 of 1994 rendered in Council of Alternative System of Medicine (M.P.) and Another Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Another.