VANCHIYOOR MADHOM DHANWANTHARI SANNIDHANAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VANCHIYOOR MADHOM DHANWANTHARI SANNIDHANAM
STATE OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA C.J. -
(1.) "Should persons who do not fulfil the prescribed qualifications and are not duly registered under the relevant statute be permitted to practise as Vaidyas?" This is the core of the controversy in this case.
(2.) We have a bunch of 46 petitions. Out of these, O.P. Nos. 27784 and 21923 of 2002 form one part and the remaining 44 petitions constitute the second part. In the first set of petitions, the main prayer is for a declaration that a person who does not possess the recognised qualification and is not registered under the Act is not entitled to practice medicine. In the second set of cases, the petitioners do not possess the prescribed qualifications. They are not even registered. Yet, the prayer is for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that they are entitled "either to get exemption from Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 or to get registration under the provisions of the said Act." The facts as averred in O.P. No. 27784 of 2002 (from the first set) may be briefly noticed.
(3.) The petitioner is a registered society. According to it, the State Legislature had enacted the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. The persons who had undergone the prescribed course of study and possessed the requisite qualifications were entitled to be registered and practice medicine. The qualifications, etc. as laid down under the Act, have been periodically amended. Later on, the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 was enacted. The purpose of both the statutes is to ensure that "medicine is not practised by those who were not qualified...........";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.