- (1.) We have heard Shri Prahlad Kumar Khare for the Petitioner. Shri Shashi Shekhar Singh appears for Union of India. Shri J.K. Tiwari represents the State Respondents.
(2.) The Petitioner-society is aggrieved by a notification issued by the Registrar of the Indian Medicine Board, U.P. published in daily newspapers 'Dainik Jagaran' from Meerut, on 26.1.2011, notifying that all those medical practitioners, who had obtained degrees from the colleges mentioned in the notification including the 'Rashtriya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Suhagpur, Dhampur, Bijnor' allegedly affiliated with All India Ayurveda Vidyapeeth, Delhi, that since the degrees awarded by these colleges are not recognized by the Indian Medicine Central Council established under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, the persons registered with UP Indian Medicine Board in pursuance to the qualifications from these colleges are not entitled to practice Indian medicine in the State of UP and their names have been removed from the State register of medical practitioners in Indian medicine. The notification applies to the degrees of Ayurvedacharya from Petitioners college Rashtriya Mahavidyalaya Sugagpur, Dhampur, District Bijnor; Ayurved Ratan/Vaid Visharath from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag after 1967; Ayurved Shiromani from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindaban after 1967 and Ayurved Bhasker from Gurukul Vishwavidyala, Jyalapur after 1967.
(3.) The notification states in its opening statement that it has been issued in pursuance to directions issued by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5324 of 2007, Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardashahar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 5324 of 2007 and other connected Civil Appeals decided on June 1.2010. The Supreme Court, after considering various judgments including the judgment in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1999 AIR(SC) 468, held in paragraphs 40 and 41 as follows: 40. In Civil Appeal No. 1337 of 2007, Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctor's Assn. Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. Civil Appeal No. 1337 of 2007, decided on 27.2.2009, this Court considered the issue involved herein at length and came to the conclusion asunder: So far as the claim that once the name is included in the register of a particular State is a right to practice in any part of the country is not tenable on the face of Section 29 of the Central Act. The right to practice is restricted in the sense that only if the name finds place in the Central Register then the question of practicing in any part of the country arises. The conditions under Section 23 of the Central Act are cumulative. Since the Appellants undisputedly do not possess recognized medical qualifications as defined in Section 2(1)(h) their names cannot be included in the Central Register. As a consequence, they cannot practice in any part of India in terms of Section 29 because of non-inclusion of their names in the Central Register. Section 17(3A) of the Maharashtra Act refers to Section 23 of the Central Act relating to Central Register. Section 17(1) relates to the register for the State. In any event, it is for the State to see that there is need for having qualification in terms of Second and fourth Schedule. The claim of the Appellants is that they have a right to practice in any part of the country. In terms of Article 19(6) of the Constitution, reasonable restriction can always be put on the exercise of right under Article 19(g). 41. This Court further came to the conclusion that unless the person possesses the qualification as prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV of the Act, 1970, he cannot claim any right to practice in medical science and mere registration in any State register is of no consequence.;