- (1.) With the consent of parties, writ petition is heard finally. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the notice at Annexure-13 published in the newspaper so as further notices dated 24.09.2010 & 12.07.2010. the petitioners are claiming right to practice in Ayurveda. They have been debarred by the respondents vide the impugned notices.
(2.) Learned counsel submits that petitioners have taken qualification in Ayurveda from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan after 1967. The petitioners passed out Vaidya Visharad examination and thus entitled to seek registration for practice in Ayurveda. It has been denied for those who had taken aforesaid qualification after the year 1967.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners has raised three grounds to challenge the impugned notices. The first ground is that in the previous litigation, the issue was finally decided in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that earlier also the respondents came out with similar arrangements as provided by the impugned notices. A writ petition was filed in the year 1986 however it was dismissed. The matter finally travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it was remanded back to the Division Bench. The Division Bench thereafter decided the review petition in favour of the petitioners vide its judgment dated 12th April, 1989. After the aforesaid judgment, it was not open for the respondents to issue notice afresh debarring the petitioners to practice. In view of the above, impugned notices deserve to be set aside on this ground alone.;