Haryana Vaidaya Samiti Haryana vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 October, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.

                                                            CWP 14392/2009
                                                  Date of Decision: 13.10.2009

Haryana Vaidaya Samiti Haryana
                                     ..........Petitioner

            Versus

State of Haryana and others

                                 ..........Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH.

Present:    Mr.B.S.Bedi,Advocate for the petitioner.



1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?


M.M.KUMAR,J.

The petitioner claims to be a registered body of all those persons

who have Ayurvedic Degree/ Vaidya Visharad/ Ayurvedic Rattan passed

from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (Prayag). They have claimed their

entitlement to medical practice under the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani

Practitioners Act,1963 (for short the 1963 Act) as applicable to Haryana. In

para 3 of the writ petition it has further been claimed that the Hindi Sahitya

Sammelan, Prayag is recognised under the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act,1962

and the degrees of Vaidya Visharad and Ayurvedic Rattan are equivalent to

the course of B.A.M.S., awarded by the universities in the State of Haryana.

The prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing the expression “to 1967” in

the 4th column of Entry no.105 concerning the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,

Prayag, Vaidya Visharad and Ayurvedic Rattan, in second schedule (Part I) of
CWP 14392/2009 2

Indian Medicines Central Council Act,1970,being ultra vires of Section 14

(1) of Indian Medicines Central Council Act,1970 and Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. A further prayer for direction to Board of Ayurvedic

and Unani System of Medicine has also been sought to recognise the

aforesaid degree by exercising the powers under the provisions of 1963

Act. It is further prayed that respondent no.2 be issued direction to hold that

the aforesaid degree holders possess the knowledge requisite for efficient

practice of Ayurvedic System of Medicines entitling them to have their

names entered in the register of Vaidyas on payment of requisite fee. There

are further prayers made for consequential relief.

At the outset, we confronted the counsel for the petitioner with

a judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court

reported as Smt.Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India and others, AIR

1971 SC 966 which holds that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act,1962 is

violative of Article 19 (1) ( c) of the Constitution. There is detailed history

traced in the aforesaid judgment with regard to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan

which at one time was declared an institution of national importance. We

also confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner with a direct

judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi

Administration and others, (1997) 11 SCC 687 wherein it was held that

degrees of Ayurvedic Rattan and Vaidya Visharad awarded by Hindi

Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (Prayag) were not genuine and cannot be

relied upon for determining the eligibility of a candidate to permit him to

practice medicine. Even the earlier view taken by Hon’ble the Supreme

Court in Dr.Ravinder Nath v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1993 (Suppl.)
CWP 14392/2009 3

(2) SCC 639 was confronted to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In response to the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel has

hardly anything to rebut. Once the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble the

Supreme Court has held the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act,1962 ultra vires

Article 19(1)(c) then any activity of such an institution cannot have any

legal sanctity. Hon’ble the Supreme Court specifically dealt with the

issuance of degrees by such institutions in the case of Dr.Ravinder Nath

(supra) and Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners’ case and

held that even if a person is registered in a State on the basis of such

degrees they were not entitled to practice under Section 17 of the Indian

Medicines Central Council Act,1970. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion

is that the members of the petitioner association cannot be permitted to

practice by issuance of direction to respondent no.2 to register them as

medical practitioners. Such an action apart from being absolutely illegal

would endanger the life of citizens in the society generally. Therefore, the

writ petition is wholly without merit and is thus liable to be dismissed.

For the reasons aforesaid this petition fails and the same is

dismissed.

                                                     (M.M.Kumar)
                                                         Judge



13.10.2009                                          (Jaswant Singh)
joshi                                                    Judge