{"id":199655,"date":"2007-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007"},"modified":"2015-12-16T18:06:56","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T12:36:56","slug":"bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic … vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic … vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: P Naolekar<\/div>\n
Bench: B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4643 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nBihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Bihar & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. AGRAWAL & P.P. NAOLEKAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWITH<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4644-4645 OF 2003
\nDr.Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors.\t\t\t\t Appellants<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t   vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of Bihar & Ors.\t\t\t\t      Respondents\n\nAND\n\nCIVIL APPEAL NO. 4646 OF 2003\nAshok Kumar & Ors. \t\t\t\t\t\t Appellants\n\n\t\t\t\t\t    vs.\n\nState of Bihar & Ors. \t\t         \t\t Respondents\n\nP.P. Naolekar, J.:\n1.\t\tThe brief facts of the case are that six \n<\/pre>\n
petitioners in CWJC No. 7253 of 1998 before the Patna High
\nCourt who had obtained GAMS (Graduate of Ayurvedic Medicine
\nand Surgery) degree from the State Faculty of Ayurvedic and
\nUnani Medicines (for short the  Faculty)  established
\nunder Section 17 of the Bihar Development  of Ayurvedic and
\nUnani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 (for short the 1951
\nAct) were not permitted to appear in the examination for
\nadmission in Post Graduate Course in Ayurved leading to
\naward of Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Ayurved.  It was
\nthe case of the petitioners that they had passed the GAMS
\nexamination conducted by the Faculty under the 1951 Act and
\nwere conferred GAMS degree by the Faculty and, thus, they
\nwere qualified to appear in the examination for obtaining
\nthe Degree of Doctor of Medicine in Ayurved.  After service
\nof notice, the respondents entered appearance and the State
\nfiled reply wherein the stand taken by the State was that
\nGAMS Degree obtained by the petitioners in 1997 was not
\nvalid and recognized degree because according to the letter
\ndated 4.7.1998 sent by the  Secretary, Central Council of
\nIndian Medicine (for short CCIM), GAMS course was no
\nlonger recognized by the CCIM.  The respondent-CCIM alleged
\nthat in accordance with the requirements of the Indian
\nMedicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short the 1970
\nAct), CCIM had prescribed regulations providing for BAMS
\n(Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) course at
\ngraduate level and MD(Ay.) course at post-graduate level,
\nand only the course prescribed by CCIM is to be conducted
\nby the universities and the prescribed degree can only be
\nawarded by them as per the 1970 Act.   It was also the case
\nof the respondents that after the Bihar Indigenous Medical
\nEducational Institution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1982
\n(for short the 1982 Act), the GAMS degree could only  be
\nrecognized if it is conferred on the students who had
\nstudied from the colleges recognized under the 1982 Act.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tOn the pleadings of the parties, the High Court
\nconsidered the case on the aspect whether the Faculty under
\nthe 1951 Act has unqualified right to grant affiliation to
\nsuch institutions or colleges which are not following the
\nBAMS course prescribed by CCIM through regulations under
\nthe 1970 Act and further whether the provisions of the 1982
\nAct which seek to regulate institutions imparting training
\nin Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine shall cover and
\nregulate even those institutions which have been granted
\naffiliation by the  Faculty.   The High Court held that the
\nsystem of course for GAMS had come to an end for quite some
\ntime and BAMS course has been followed as per the
\nregulations of CCIM; hence, only on the basis of a
\ncontinued entry in the Second Schedule of the 1970 Act
\nwhich recognized GAMS degree, which is in the view of the
\nHigh Court is archaic, no right can be found in the person
\nor institution to ignore the course validly prescribed by
\nthe competent authority-CCIM.  The High Court further held
\nthat the 1982 Act aims at curing a rampant evil in
\nconcerned colleges in the State of Bihar and hence the
\nState Government was given control in the matter of making
\nqueries  into the standard of educational institutions
\nteaching Indian system of medicine, and thereafter
\nproceeding for recognition of the institution under the
\n1982 Act.  It was held that when the petitioners who
\nobtained GAMS degrees had studied in the educational
\ninstitutions which have not followed course prescribed by
\nCCIM, the statutory central authority, and further when
\nsuch institutions have been run in total contravention and
\nviolation of the 1982 Act, they are not entitled to for
\nissuance of any writ from the court.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tAnother writ petition being CWJC No. 825 of 1998
\nfiled by Pramila Kumari & Ors. in the Patna High Court
\nchallenged the order whereby they had not been allowed to
\ncompete in the selection for appointment to the post of
\nAyurvedic Medical Officer on the basis that they were the
\nholders of GAMS degree from the Bihar State Faculty, which
\nwas claimed to be a recognized degree by the CCIM.  The
\npetitioners sought relief that they be permitted to fill up
\nthe forms and to take part in the examination and further
\nfor declaration that GAMS degree granted by the Faculty was
\nequivalent to BAMS degree granted by a recognized
\nUniversity of the State.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThe learned Single Judge differed with the view
\ntaken by the court in CWJC No. 7253 of 1998 and held that
\nFaculty has been created under the 1951 Act, much prior to
\nthe promulgation of the 1982 Act, the powers under the 1951
\nAct of granting GAMS degree by the Faculty is also
\nrecognized under the 1970 Central Act as per Second
\nSchedule thereof.  The court was also concerned with the
\nfate of the students who had been conferred GAMS degree by
\na body created under the 1951 Act and the degree has been
\nsaved by recognizing it under the 1970 Central Act.  In
\nthis view, the matter was directed to be placed before a
\nDivision Bench after necessary orders of Honble the Chief
\nJustice.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWJC
\nNo. 7253 of 1998 was challenged by filing LPA No. 451 of
\n2000 by only one petitioner, namely, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh
\nand other petitioners were impleaded in the case as
\nrespondents.  Also the Bihar State Council of Ayuyrvedic
\nand Unani Medicine aggrieved by the judgment in CWJC No.
\n7253 of 1998, filed another letters patent appeal which was
\nregistered as LPA No. 463 of 2000.  CWJC No. 825 of 1998
\nwas placed along with the LPAs before the Division Bench
\nfor decision.  The writ petitioners re-asserted their
\nsubmissions before the Division Bench that they had
\ncompleted the course of GAMS degree and passed examination
\nconducted by the Faculty under the 1951 Act.  As per Second
\nSchedule of the 1970 Act, a central Act, which contains
\nState-wise entries, entries Nos. 6 to 9A relate to the
\ninstitutions\/universities of Bihar which recognize GAMS
\ndegree under entry No. 6 from 1953 onwards.  It was
\nsubmitted that as the degree conferred on the writ
\npetitioners is a recognized degree on the basis of the said
\nentry in the 1970 Act, they were entitled to appear for
\nentrance test to the post-graduate course and also for
\nconsideration for  appointment to the post of Ayurvedic
\nMedical Officers on the basis of GAMS degree which they
\nwere holding.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tThe Division Bench agreed with the reasoning
\nadopted by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No 7253 of 1990
\nand held that under the scheme of the 1970 Act as well as
\nthe Bihar Indigenous Medical Educational Institution
\n(Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 1981 which was replaced
\nby Bihar Act 20 of 1982, the CCIM was authorised to
\nprescribe the course of studies in the system of medicine
\nso that the Indian system of medicine may maintain
\nuniformity and standard of teaching all over the country,
\nwhich has been sought to be achieved by the regulations
\nframed under the 1970 Act.  The Division Bench also agreed
\nwith the learned Single Judge that the course of study of
\nGAMS had come to an end and had been replaced by BAMS
\ncourse, much before the writ petitioners acquired their
\nGAMS degree.  The Court approved the decision of the
\nlearned Single Judge whereby he had come to the conclusion
\nthat the 1982 Act has been enacted to regulate the
\nindiscriminate opening of indigenous medical institutions
\nin the State by persons of bodies registered under the
\nSocieties Registration Act, 1960 and had in fact
\ncommercialized the system of education in indigenous
\nmedicine; therefore, the institutions which are not
\nrecognized by the State under the 1982 Act could not impart
\nthe study in Ayurvedic medicine.    It was held that the
\nState authorities under the 1982 Act have rightly taken the
\nfollow-up action.  On these findings being arrived at by
\nthe Division Bench, no merit was found in the LPAs and the
\nwrit petition, which were dismissed by the Division Bench.
\nAggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2001 passed by the
\nDivision Bench in the LPAs and the WP, the appellants,
\nnamely, Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine
\n(in Civil Appeal No.4643\/2003), Dr. Sudhir Kumar Singh &
\nOrs. (in Civil Appeal Nos. 4644-46 of 2003) and Ashok Kumar
\nSingh & Ors. (in Civil Appeal No. 4646 of 2003) are before
\nus by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tIt is an admitted fact before us that the writ
\npetitioners have studied from Ramjee Prasad, Ram Kumari
\nDevi @ Marni Devi Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital,
\nFatuha and Shrihari Shakuntalayam Ayurvedic Medical
\nCollege, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.  The said colleges were
\ngranted affiliation by the Faculty on 19.8.1995 with
\nretrospective effect from the session commenced in 1992 and
\nthey are recognized under the 1951 Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThe Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani
\nSystems of Medicine Act, 1951 received the assent of the
\nPresident on 12.9.1951 and the assent was first published
\nin the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 17.10.1951.
\nThis Act was enacted to provide for the development of the
\nayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine, to regulate their
\nteaching and practice, and to control the sale of
\nindigenous medicinal herbs and drugs in the State of Bihar.
\nIn exercise of powers under Section 3, the State Government
\nshall, by notification, constitute a Council to be called
\nthe Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines,
\nwhich shall consist of a President and the Members
\nmentioned in clauses (a) to (n) of Section 3(1).  Under
\nSection 17 of this Act, the Council shall establish a State
\nFaculty of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines for the purposes
\nof the Act which shall consist of a Chairman and the
\nMembers enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 17(1).
\nUnder clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 17,  it
\nshall be the duty of the Faculty to recognize educational
\nor instructional institutions of the Ayurvedic and Unani
\nsystems of medicine for purposes of affiliation.  Under
\nclause (b) of Section 17(2), the Faculty is authorized to
\nhold examination and grant certificates to, and confer
\ndegrees or diplomas on, persons who shall have pursued a
\ncourse of study in the institutions affiliated to the
\nFaculty.    Section 37 of this Act authorizes the Council
\nto establish educational institutions, prescribe courses of
\nstudy, etc. subject to the rules as may be prescribed by
\nthe State Government in this behalf.  Section 37 clothes
\nthe Council with power to establish its own educational or
\ninstructional institutions for the purpose of conducting
\ncourses of Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine.  Under
\nSection 54,  the Council is authorized to make regulations
\nsubject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made by
\nthe State Government.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tLooking into the aforesaid provisions, it is
\nclear to us that the Council constituted by the State
\nGovernment under the 1951 Act shall establish a State
\nFaculty under Section 17 which shall have the authority to
\nrecognize educational or instructional institutions of
\nAyurvedic and Unani systems of medicine, to conduct
\nexaminations of the persons studying in such affiliated
\ninstitutions, and to grant certificates and confer degrees
\nor diplomas.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tUnder Section 54 of the 1951 Act, the Council has
\nframed regulations called the Bihar Development of
\nAyurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines Regulations, 1959.
\nRegulation 16 thereof provides for courses of study for the
\nDegree (Graduate of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery) (GAMS).
\nThus, the Faculty established by the Council under the 1951
\nAct has been authorized to recognize the educational
\ninstitutions or instructional institutions of Ayurvedic and
\nUnani Systems of Medicine and affiliate them to the
\nFaculty.   The Faculty is also authorized to conduct
\nexaminations and confer degree of GAMS.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThe Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970
\n(Central Act) provides for constitution of a Central
\nCouncil of Indian Medicine (CCIM) and the maintenance of a
\nCentral Register of Indian Medicine and for matters
\nconnected therewith.  This Act was enacted by the
\nParliament and came into force on 21.12.1970.  Introduction
\nto this Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
      To consider problems relating to the Indian
\nsystem of medicine and Homoeopathy a number of
\nCommittees were appointed by the Government of India,
\nwhich had recommended that a statutory Central Council
\non the lines of the Medicinal Council of India for
\nmodern system of medicine should be established for
\nthe proper development of these systems of medicine
\n(Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani).  In June, 1966 the
\nCentral Council of Health at its 13th meeting, while
\ndiscussing the policy on Ayurvedic education,
\nrecommended the setting up of a Central Council for
\nIndian system of medicine to lay down and regulate
\nstandards of education and examinations,
\nqualifications and practice in these systems.  On the
\nbasis of the above recommendations the Indian Medicine
\nCentral Council Bill was introduced in the
\nParliament.\n<\/p>\n
Sections 13A, 13B and 13C with their sub-sections have been
\nsubstituted by the Indian Medicine Central Council
\n(Amendment) Act, 2003 (No. 58 of 2003) w.e.f. 7.11.2003,
\nwhich prescribe for the permission for establishment of new
\nmedical colleges, new courses of study, etc.; non-
\nrecognition of medical qualifications in certain cases; and
\ntime for seeking permission of the Central Government for
\ncertain existing or new medical colleges.  We shall deal
\nwith these Sections in detail when we take up the
\nsubmissions of the counsel of the effect of these Sections
\non the GAMS degree conferred on the students prior to
\ncoming into force of Amending Act 58 of 2003.   Section 14
\nfalling in Chapter III of the 1970 Central Act provides for
\nrecognition of the medical qualifications granted by any
\nuniversity, board or other medical institution in India
\nwhich are included in the Second Schedule.  The Second
\nSchedule provides for the recognized medical
\nqualifications, i.e. degrees\/diplomas, awarded by the
\nStates\/Boards\/Faculties\/Universities before the
\nconstitution of the Central Council of Indian Medicine.
\nUnder the 1970 Act, the CCIM is competent to prescribe the
\nminimum standard of education including curriculam and
\nsyllabi as well as other requirements like hospital,
\nlibrary, students hostel, staff for college, staff for
\nhospital, library, herbal garden, requirements of various
\ndepartments of colleges, etc.  The Second Schedule
\nprescribes the institutions\/colleges and the medical
\nqualifications which are recognized under the Act for the
\ndifferent States.  For the State of Bihar, item No. 6 of
\nthe Second Schedule reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————————————————
\nName of Universities, Board\t        Recognised Medical        Abbreviation    Remarks
\nor Medical Institution\t\t        Qualifications\t                for
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRegistration\n<\/p>\n
———————————————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
xxx\t\t\t\t\txxx\t\t\t\t\t\txxx\n\nBihar\n\n6.  State Faculty of Ayurvedic        Graduate in Ayurvedic      G.A.M.S.     From 1953\n      and Unani Medicines,               Medicine and Surgery\t\t             onwards.\n      Patna, Bihar.\n\nxxx\t\t\t\t\txxx\t\t\t\t\t\txxx\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Under the 1970 Act, the State Faculty established under the
\nBihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines
\n(appellant in LPA No. 463 of 2000 and appellant in Civil
\nAppeal No. 4643 of 2000) is empowered to confer a degree of
\nGraduate in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (GAMS) from 1953
\nonwards.   It is an admitted fact that the 1951 Act has not
\nbeen repealed by the 1970 Central Act nor it is the
\nsubmission of any counsel appearing for respective parties
\nthat the provisions of the 1951 Act,  in regard to
\nconferment of GAMS degree, are repugnant to the provisions
\nof the 1970 Act.  The Second Schedule in the 1970 Act
\nitself recognizes the GAMS degree given by the State
\nFaculty of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Patna, Bihar from
\n1953 onwards and thus it cannot be said that the course
\nprescribed by the Faculty for conferment of a degree of
\nGAMS is de-recognised under the 1970 Act.   The 1970 Act
\nread with regulations made thereunder prescribes course for
\nconferment of a degree of BAMS by a University, whereas the
\n1951 Act prescribes course for conferment of a GAMS degree
\nby State Faculty.  Degree conferred by a university and
\ndegree conferred by a faculty are different for which
\nseparate courses have been prescribed.  The 1951 Act having
\nnot been repealed by the 1970 Act, or till the Second
\nSchedule is not amended de-recognising the degree of GAMS,
\nthe degree of GAMS given by the State Faculty will remain
\nintact.   No amendment has been brought about till today
\nwhereby the degree of GAMS given by the State Faculty is
\nde-recognised under the 1970 Act. The 1951 State Act with
\nits rules and regulations, is a complete code for
\nrecognizing and granting affiliation to indigenous medical
\ninstitutions by the Faculty, provide the course of study in
\nthe institutions, and regulate the functioning of the
\ninstitutions affiliated to the Faculty.  The Faculty while
\nexercising its powers has to abide by the conditions laid
\ndown in the rules and regulations.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tThe 1951 State Act is consistent with the 1970
\nCentral Act in regard to granting of the GAMS degree, as
\nthe degree granted under the 1951 State Act is still
\nrecognized under the 1970 Central Act.  The 1951 State Act
\nand the 1970 Central Act are complementary to each other.
\nThe Faculty comes under the definition of `medical
\ninstitution under Section 2(f) of the 1970 Central Act and
\nGAMS degree awarded by the Faculty is a recognised medical
\nqualification under Section 14 of the 1970 Central Act.
\nThe Second Schedule of the 1970 Act grants  authority to
\nthe Faculty to grant GAMS degree.   The High Court has,
\ntherefore, clearly committed an error in holding that after
\nthe BAMS degree has been introduced, GAMS degree issued by
\nthe Faculty was de-recognised or not in operation after the
\n1970 Act came into force.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tThe question, however, is whether with the
\nintroduction of the Bihar Indigenous Medical Educational
\nInstitution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1982, the
\nstudents who have studied in the colleges which were not
\nrecognized under the said 1982 Act could be conferred with
\nGAMS degree by the Faculty, and if such degrees are
\nconferred what shall be the fate of the degrees conferred
\non such students?  We would also be required to consider
\nthe effect of the Indian Medicine Central Council
\n(Amendment) Act, 2003, particularly Sections 13A, 13B and
\n13C which have been substituted by way of amendment in the
\n1970 Act and came into force on 7.11.2003, on the degrees
\nconferred on the students who have studied in the colleges
\nwhich have not sought or have not been given permission as
\nrequired under Section 13C of the 1970 Act to open the
\ncollege or continue the college, by the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
14.    It is urged by the learned counsel for the
\nappellants that the colleges which are affiliated to the
\nFaculty under the 1951 Act do not require any approval from
\nthe State Government to start or to continue the
\neducational institution or to run the courses of study in
\nindigenous system of medicine leading to the degree,
\ndiploma etc., as included in Second Schedule of the 1970
\nAct, as the 1951 Act is a self-contained code.  Whereas, it
\nis the submission of the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents that after the Ordinance of 1981 and the Act of
\n1982 came into force, all colleges which are affiliated to
\nthe Faculty or which have to be opened after the Ordinance
\nof 1981  and the Act of 1982 came into force,  require
\npermission of the State Government for opening or
\ncontinuing the colleges or institution running the
\ncolleges, imparting education in indigenous system of
\nmedicine.  If any college or the educational institution
\nrunning the college continues the educational facility,
\nimparting education in indigenous system of medicine
\nleading to the degree, diploma etc., as included in the Act
\nof 1982 without permission, would run the risk to their
\nstudents of not being conferred with a recognized degree
\nand penalties provided under the 1982 Act.  The counsel
\nfurther submits that after the introduction of 1982 Act the
\npower of the Faculty to grant affiliation is circumscribed
\nby the requirement of the State Governments permission to
\nopen the college imparting education in Ayurvedic and Unani
\nsystems of medicine.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tUnder the 1951 Act, Section 17 provides for the
\nestablishment of the Faculty.  Sub-section (2) of Section
\n17 provides :  it shall be the duty of the Faculty  to
\nprescribe the course of study and curricula for general
\ninstructions, or  special refresher courses,  in
\ninstitutions affiliated to the Faculty.   By  virtue  of
\nclause  (d)  of sub-section (2) of Section 17, the Faculty
\nis to recognize educational or instructional institutions
\nof the Ayurvedic and Unani systems of medicine for purposes
\nof affiliation.  The manner in which the affiliation is to
\nbe given is provided in Chapter II of the 1959 Regulations
\nwhereunder an application for affiliation of an institution
\nshall be made to the Registrar, State Council of Ayurvedic
\nand Unani Medicines, Bihar.  After the application is
\nreceived for affiliation, the Faculty will scrutinize the
\napplication and if it is satisfied on the basis of the
\nmaterial supplied in the application or otherwise that the
\ninstitution proposed to be affiliated has nearly fulfilled
\nor is likely to fulfill all the conditions imposed by the
\nCouncil established under the Act and is likely to run
\nefficiently, it would depute an Inspector to visit the
\ninstitution, make inquiry and report back to the Faculty.
\nAfter the completion of the inquiry and submission of the
\ninspection report, the Faculty shall give recognition to
\nthe institution either permanently or provisionally for a
\nlimited period or may reject it.  The decision of the
\nFaculty shall be communicated to the institution concerned
\nas soon as possible.  It is clear from the aforesaid
\nprovisions that the Faculty under the 1951 Act has been
\nempowered with the power to affiliate institutions which
\nare imparting education in Ayurvedic and Unani systems of
\nmedicine.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tThe Bihar Indigenous Medical Educational
\nInstitution (Regulation and Control) Ordinance, 1981 which
\nprovides for regulation and control of educational
\ninstitutions of indigenous system of medicine in the State
\nof Bihar was promulgated on 16th November, 1981.  Preamble
\nto the Ordinance reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
\tWhereas, the Legislature of the State of
\nBihar is not in session ;\n<\/p>\n
\tAnd, whereas, the Governor of Bihar is
\nsatisfied that inspite of repeated warnings from
\nGovernment through Press Notes and Notices
\nunregulated and indiscriminate opening of
\nIndigenous Medical Educational Institutions in
\nthis State by persons or bodies registered under
\nthe Societies Registration Act, 1960 or otherwise
\nwithout providing for adequate teaching
\nfacilities is hampering the cause of Indigenous
\nMedical Education and is highly detrimental to
\nthe interest of students, admitted to such
\ninstitutions after charging heavy capitation fee
\nor donation and as such the circumstances exist
\nwhich render it necessary to prescribe for
\nregulation and control on the opening of College
\nor Institutions of Indigenous System of Medicine
\nin the State of Bihar;<\/p>\n
17.\t\tThe Ordinance was later replaced by introduction
\nof the Act, viz.,  the Bihar Indigneous Medical Educational
\nInstitution (Regulation and Control) Act, 1981 (Act 20 of
\n1982) which came into force on 21st January, 1982.  Section
\n3 of the Act requires the Governing Body or Organizing
\nCommittee or any body or institution intending to start
\nmedical course of study of  indigenous system of medicine,
\nalong with requisite information regarding the study, to
\napply to the State Government in the Health Department.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tSection 5 contemplates that on receipt of an
\napplication for permission to open the medical course of
\nstudy of indigenous system of medicine, the State
\nGovernment would cause the inspection of the body, agency,
\ncollege or institution by the Central Council of Indian
\nMedicine (CCIM) or Inspector appointed by the State
\nGovernment to see whether the conditions laid down by the
\nCCIM constituted under Section 3 of the 1970 Act are
\nfulfilled or not.  Section 6 further provides that on
\ncompletion of the inspection the State Government in the
\nHealth Department will seek permission of the Government of
\nIndia and the CCIM of India for granting permission to the
\nstarting of the course of medical studies in indigenous
\nsystem of medicine by the applicant.  Section 7 postulates
\nthat to all private medical colleges and medical
\ninstitutions in indigenous system of medicine, preparing or
\nintending to prepare students for study in indigenous
\nsystem of medicine leading to degree, diploma, etc. and
\nwhich have not been permanently affiliated to any
\nUniversity in the State of Bihar, the provisions of the
\n1982 Act shall apply.  The 1982 Act has been made
\napplicable to all private medical colleges and medical
\ninstitutions which are not permanently affiliated to any
\nUniversity in the State of Bihar.  By virtue of Section 9,
\nthe institutions which have been functioning without prior
\npermission or approval of the State Government are required
\nto apply for such permission within a period of one month
\nfrom the date of coming into force of the 1982 Act.  This
\nSection prohibits admission of the students in such
\ninstitutions till the grant of permission by the
\nGovernment.  It also provides that in case the application
\nis not moved within the stipulated period or the State
\nGovernment refuses permission, they will be deemed to have
\nbeen established in contravention of the provisions of the
\nAct.   Section 10 provides for penalty and a person
\ncontravening any of the provisions of the Act is made
\nliable for punishment with a fine which may extend to Rs.
\n10,000\/- and imprisonment for a term which may extend upto
\nthree years.  In case of continuing contravention, such
\nperson shall be liable to pay a further fine which may
\nextend to Rs.1,000\/- per day after the date of the first
\nconviction for the period during which he is proved to have
\npersisted in such contravention.  The offence is made non-
\nbailable and cognizable.  As per Section 11, if the
\napplication moved for permission to start medical course of
\nstudy of indigenous system of medicine either under Section
\n3 or Section 9 is refused as the institution or college is
\nnot found eligible or does not qualify for permission, it
\nis incumbent on the organizer of such institution to close
\nit down within a period of three months of refusal of
\npermission.  Section 15 gives authority to the State
\nGovernment to seize the accounts of an institution
\ncontravening the provisions of the Act.  From these
\nprovisions, it is apparent that after introduction of the
\n1981 Ordinance and the 1982 Act, the Governing Body or the
\nOrganizing Committee or any body or institution intending
\nto start any course of study in indigenous system of
\nmedicine is required to seek permission of the State
\nGovernment to open a private medical college or medical
\ninstitution for admitting the students to be conferred with
\na degree, diploma, etc., as included in the Second Schedule
\nof the 1970 Act.  It is only the Governing Body or the
\nOrganising Committee or any body or institution which has
\nbeen permanently affiliated to any University in the State
\nof Bihar is exempted from the provisions of the 1981
\nOrdinance or the 1982 Act.  Institutions already imparting
\neducation in indigenous system of medicine are required to
\ntake permission after coming into force of the 1982 Act.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tThe Act provides for imposition of the fine and
\nimprisonment for any person who contravenes any of the
\nprovisions of the 1981 Ordinance or the 1982 Act.  If the
\npermission is refused, the institution will be closed down.
\nSection 13 of the Act further authorizes the State
\nGovernment to authorize any officer to enter into the
\npremises of the institution contravening the provisions of
\nthe 1981 Ordinance or the 1982 Act for the purposes of
\ninspection and carrying into effect the provisions of the
\nOrdinance or the Act.  Such officer may be empowered to
\nclose down the institution and to lock and seal it.   The
\nAct also provides provision for seizure of the accounts by
\nthe State Government of an institution contravening the
\nprovisions of the Ordinance or the Act.   The Act arms the
\nState Government with various powers including the penal
\npowers.  Although the colleges were opened in the year 1992
\nwithout the authority or the permission of the State
\nGovernment as required under the Act, no steps have been
\ntaken by the State of Bihar, and the students admitted in
\nthe two institutions which were affiliated with the Faculty
\nwere conferred with the GAMS Degree.   After reading the
\nprovisions of the Act, it is apparent to us that the 1982
\nAct is supplementary to the 1951 Act.    The 1951 Act
\nalthough provides for the inspection of the institutions
\nwhich have to be affiliated to the Faculty,  does not lay
\ndown that the conditions laid down by the CCIM are to be
\nfollowed and adhered to.  That has been provided under the
\n1982 Act.  So the colleges or the institutions which want
\nto impart education in the indigenous system of medicine
\nhave not only to follow the conditions laid down by the
\nFaculty or the Council under the 1951 Act, but also under
\nthe 1982 Act.  The college or the institution after the Act
\ncame into force cannot continue without the permission of
\nthe State Government as contemplated in the 1982 Act.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tWe have examined  the provisions of the 1982 Act.
\nThe counsel for the State or the University could not point
\nout as to what shall happen to the degrees given to the
\nstudents who studied in the colleges which have been
\naffiliated with the Faculty but without permission under
\nthe 1982 Act.  We do not find any provision in the 1982 Act
\nwhich takes away the degree already granted to the students
\nconferred by the Faculty, recognized under the 1951 Act,
\nand is being accepted to be a recognized degree under the
\n1970 Act.  Therefore, by virtue of introduction of the 1982
\nAct, it cannot be said that the degrees conferred on the
\nstudents who have studied in the colleges which have not
\nbeen granted permission by the State Government  as
\nrequired under the 1982 Act, will be ipso facto illegal and
\ncould not be given effect to.   However, we make it clear
\nthat any body, agency, college or institution which has not
\nsought permission from the State Government would not be
\ngranted affiliation by the Faculty under the 1951 Act and
\nthe State Government shall take appropriate steps under the
\n1982 Act if any body, agency, college or institution is\/are
\nfunctioning without the permission of the State Government
\nas required under the 1982 Act.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tIt is then contended by the learned counsel for
\nthe State that after the coming into force of the Indian
\nMedicine Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2003 (for short
\nthe Amending Act) on 7th November, 2003, if any medical
\ncollege established on or before the commencement of the
\nAmending Act does not seek permission of the Central
\nGovernment within the period of three years from the said
\ncommencement, the medical qualification granted to any
\nstudent of such medical college shall not be deemed to be a
\nrecognized medical qualification for the purposes of the
\n1970 Act.  It is submitted that the two colleges from where
\nthe appellant-students were educated having not sought
\npermission from the Central Government under the 1970 Act,
\nthe GAMS degree conferred on them shall not be a recognized
\nmedical qualification for the purposes of the 1970 Act, as
\na result whereof they are not eligible for admission for
\nhigher course of study or for employment on the basis of
\nthe GAMS degree conferred on them which is not a recognized
\nmedical qualification.  For this proposition, the learned
\ncounsel for the State has relied upon the provisions of
\nSections 13A, 13B and 13C which have been introduced by
\nAmending Act of 2003.  For a better understanding of the
\ncontentions, the relevant portions of the Sections are
\nreproduced hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
13A. Permission for establishment of new medical
\ncollege, new course of study, etc.–(1)
\nNotwithstanding anything contained in this Act or
\nany other law for the time being in force,–<\/p>\n
\t(a) no person shall establish a medical
\ncollege; \t\t     or\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) no medical college shall–\n<\/p>\n
(i) open a new or higher course of study or
\ntraining, including a post-graduate course
\nof study or training, which would enable a
\nstudent of such course or training to
\nqualify himself for the award of any
\nrecognised medical qualification; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) increase its admission capacity in any
\ncourse of study or training including a
\npost-graduate course of study or training,
\nexcept with the previous permission of the
\nCentral Government obtained in accordance
\nwith the provisions of this section.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 1.–For the purposes of this section,
\n“person” includes any University or a trust, but
\ndoes not include the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 2.–For the purposes of this section,
\n“admission capacity”, in relation to any course
\nof study or training, including post-graduate
\ncourse of study or training, in a medical
\ncollege, means the maximum number of students as
\nmay be fixed by the Central Government from time
\nto time for being admitted to such course or
\ntraining.\n<\/p>\n
xxx\t\t\t\txxx\t\t\t\t\txxx<\/p>\n
13B.  Non-recognition of medical qualifications
\nin certain cases.–(1) Where any medical college
\nis established without the previous permission of
\nthe Central Government in accordance with the
\nprovisions of section 13A, medical qualification
\ngranted to any student of such medical college
\nshall not be deemed to be a recognised medical
\nqualification for the purposes of this Act.
\n(2) Where any medical college opens a new or
\nhigher course of study or training including a
\npost-graduate course of study or training without
\nthe previous permission of the Central Government
\nin accordance with the provisions of section 13A,
\nmedical qualification granted to any student of
\nsuch medical college on the basis of such study
\nor training shall not be deemed to be a
\nrecognised medical qualification for the purposes
\nof this Act.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Where any medical college increases its
\nadmission capacity in any course of study or
\ntraining without the previous permission of the
\nCentral Government in accordance with the
\nprovisions of section 13A, medical qualification
\ngranted to any student of such medical college on
\nthe basis of the increase in its admission
\ncapacity shall not be deemed to be a recognised
\nmedical qualification for the purposes of this
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
13C.   Time for seeking permission for certain
\nexisting medical colleges.– (1) If any person
\nhas established a medical college or any medical
\ncollege has opened a new or higher course of
\nstudy or training or increased the admission
\ncapacity on or before the commencement of the
\nIndian Medicine Central Council (Amendment) Act,
\n2003, such person or medical college, as the case
\nmay be, shall seek, within a period of three
\nyears from the said commencement, permission of
\nthe Central Government in accordance with the
\nprovisions of section 13A.\n<\/p>\n
(2) If any person or medical college, as the case
\nmay be, fails to seek permission under sub-
\nsection (1), the provisions of section 13B shall
\napply, so far as may be, as if permission of the
\nCentral Government under section 13A has been
\nrefused.<\/p>\n
22.\t\tFor the purposes of the 1970 Act, `Indian
\nmedicine is a system of Indian medicine commonly known as
\nAshtang Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb.  Section 2(ea) of
\nthe 1970 Act defines `medical college to mean a college of
\nIndian medicine where a person undergoes a course of study
\nor training which will qualify him for the award of a
\nrecognized medical qualification.  Section 13A(1) prohibits
\nany person to establish a medical college; and a medical
\ncollege to open a new or higher course of study or training
\nincluding a post-graduate course of study or training,
\nwhich would enable the students of that medical college for
\nthe award of any recognised medical qualification or to
\nincrease its admission capacity except with the previous
\npermission of the Central Government obtained in accordance
\nwith the provisions of Section 13A.  Sub-sections (2), (3),
\n(4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) of Section 13A lay down the
\nmanner in which the Central Government is to be approached
\nfor establishment of a new medical college or for opening
\nof a new higher course of study or increasing admission
\ncapacity and how it would be dealt with.  Section 13B
\npostulates that where any medical college is established or
\nan established medical college opens a new higher course of
\nstudy or training or where any medical college increases
\nits admission capacity in any course of study or training
\nwithout the permission of the Central Government, the
\nmedical qualification granted to any student of such
\nmedical college or the higher course of study or training
\nor admission in the increased capacity in any course of
\nstudy, would not be a recognized medical qualification for
\nthe purposes of the Act.  Section 13C, however, provides a
\nbreathing time to the medical colleges which have been
\nestablished on or before the commencement of the Amending
\nAct of 2003 without the permission of the Central
\nGovernment to get such permission within a period of three
\nyears from the commencement of the Act.   Therefore, the
\ncolleges or the institutions which have not obtained the
\npermission of the Central Government may do so within a
\nperiod of three years from the commencement of the Act to
\nsave the medical qualification conferred on the students of
\nsuch medical colleges  from the rigour of Section 13B of
\nthe 1970 Act.  However, as per sub-section (2) of Section
\n13C, if any person or medical college fails to seek
\npermission within three years of commencement of the Act,
\nqualification granted to any student of such medical
\ninstitution shall not be  a recognised  medical
\nqualification and it shall be deemed that permission to
\nopen or start a new course or increase strength of students
\nwas refused by the Central Government.   Medical colleges
\nopened on or before the coming into force of the Amending
\nAct of 2003 are necessarily required to take permission
\nwithin three years to save the recognized medical
\nqualification of the students.  On their failure, the
\nmedical qualification conferred on the students shall come
\nto naught.    Under Section 13A, a person who establishes a
\nmedical college or a medical college opens a new higher
\ncourse of study or increases the admission capacity is
\nrequired to move an application for permission of the
\nCentral Government.  For obtaining permission as required
\nunder Section 13A, every person or medical college is
\nrequired to submit a scheme in such form with requisite
\nfee, containing such particulars as provided under sub-
\nsection (3) of Section 13A.  The Central Government on
\nreceipt of such application may require the applicant to
\nsubmit such other particulars as may be considered
\nnecessary.  The Central Government after considering the
\nscheme and recommendations of the Central Council and after
\nobtaining such other  particulars as felt necessary, may
\napprove the scheme with such conditions which are
\nconsidered necessary.  The Central Government may also
\ndisapprove the scheme.  Sub-section (6) of Section 13A
\nprovides that where within a period of one year from the
\ndate of submission of scheme to the Central Government, no
\norder is communicated by the Central Government to a person
\nor medical college, such scheme shall be deemed to have
\nbeen approved by the Central Government in the form in
\nwhich it was submitted.  From the aforesaid provisions, it
\nis apparent that an application seeking permission for
\nopening a medical college  has to be moved by a person
\nwhich also includes the university or a trust or a medical
\ncollege or those which are already running the medical
\ncollege when the Amending Act came into force.  Section 13A
\nnowhere provides that the students who have studied in the
\nmedical colleges would be eligible to seek permission of
\nthe Central Government under that Section.  Section 13A or
\nSection 13B or Section 13C nowhere contemplates moving of
\nan application by the students to take steps under Section
\n13A.  In such a situation, the question arises what shall
\nhappen to the degrees conferred on the students who have
\nstudied in the medical colleges established prior to the
\ncommencement of the Amending Act where the Governing Body
\nor Organising Committee or any body or institution does not
\ntake any step for seeking permission of the Central
\nGovernment and the period prescribed under Section 13C of
\nthree years has expired or where the institution has been
\nclosed down immediately after the commencement of the
\nAmending Act of 2003 and, therefore, no body is interested
\nin seeking permission of the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tThe provisions of Sections 13A, 13B and 13C of
\nthe 1970 Act as introduced by the Amending Act of 2003, if
\ngiven retrospective operation, the medical qualification
\nacquired from the study in the medical colleges which have
\nbeen opened prior to the commencement of the  Amending Act
\nof 2003 and conferred medical qualification on the students
\nwho studied in such medical colleges, the degrees so
\nconferred in the absence of the permission of the Central
\nGovernment would be non est though there is no fault on the
\npart of the students who have studied in the institutions
\nwhich are recognized and affiliated to the Faculty  under
\nthe 1951 Act.\n<\/p>\n
24.\t\tIn our opinion, where the legislature has used
\nwords in an Act which if generally construed, must lead to
\npalpable injustice and consequences revolting to the mind
\nof any reasonable man, the court will always endeavour to
\nplace on such words a reasonable limitation, on the ground
\nthat the legislature could not have intended such
\nconsequence to ensue, unless the express language in the
\nAct or binding authority prevents such limitation being
\ninterpolated into the Act.  In construing an Act, a
\nconstruction ought not be put that would work injustice, or
\neven hardship or inconvenience, unless it is clear that
\nsuch was the intention of the legislature.  It is also
\nsettled that where the language of the legislature admits
\nof two constructions and if construction in one way would
\nlead to obvious injustice, the courts act upon the view
\nthat such a result could not have been intended, unless the
\nintention had been manifested in express words.  Out of the
\ntwo interpretations, that language of the statute should be
\npreferred to that interpretation which  would frustrate it.
\nIt is a cardinal rule governing the interpretation of the
\nstatutes that when the language of the legislature admits
\nof two constructions, the court should not adopt the
\nconstruction which would lead to an absurdity or obvious
\ninjustice.  It is equally well settled that within two
\nconstructions that alternative is to be chosen which would
\nbe consistent with the smooth working of the system which
\nthe statute purported to be regulating and that alternative
\nis to be rejected which will introduce uncertainty,
\nfriction or confusion with the working of the system.  [See
\nCollector of Customs  v. Digvijaysinhji Spinning & Weaving
\nMills Ltd.<\/a> (1962) 1 SCR 896, at page 899 and His Holiness
\nKesvananda Bharati  v.  State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461].\n<\/p>\n
25.\t\tThe court must always lean to the interpretation
\nwhich is a reasonable one, and discard the literal
\ninterpretation which does not fit in with the scheme of the
\nAct under consideration.\n<\/p>\n
26.\t\tIn series of judgments of this Court, these
\nexceptional situations have been provided for. In
\nNarashimaha Murthy  v.  Susheelabai,<\/a> (1996) 3 SCC 644 (at
\npage 647), it was held that:\n<\/p>\n
      The purpose of law is to prevent  brooding
\nsense of injustice. It is not the words of the
\nlaw but the spirit and eternal sense of it that
\nmakes the law meaningful. <\/p>\n
In the case of American Home Products Corporation v.
\nMac Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Another, AIR<\/a> 1986 SC
\n137 (at page 166, para 66), it was held that:\n<\/p>\n
       .. It is a well-known principle of
\ninterpretation of statutes that a construction
\nshould not be put upon a statutory provision
\nwhich would lead to manifest absurdity or
\nfutility, palpable injustice, or absurd
\ninconvenience or anomaly.  <\/p>\n
Further, in the case of State of Punjab v. Sat Ram Das, AIR<\/a>
\n1959 Punj. 497,  the Punjab High Court held that:\n<\/p>\n
      To avoid absurdity or incongruity,
\ngrammatical and ordinary sense of the words can,
\nin certain circumstances, be avoided.<\/p>\n
27.\t       The amendment brought about in the Indian
\nMedicine Central Council Act, 1970,  in 2003 by
\nintroduction of Sections 13A, 13B and 13C are the
\nprovisions for continuance of the institution which has not
\nobtained prior permission of the Central Government and,
\ntherefore, time limit of three years has been provided
\nunder Section 13C to regularize the institutions affairs
\nas required under the Act by seeking permission of the
\nCentral Government.  Insertion of Section 13A in the 1970
\nCentral Act in the year 2003 has regulated the opening of
\nan indigenous medical college.   The non-obstante clause
\nclearly indicates that a medical institution cannot be
\nestablished except with the prior permission of the Central
\nGovernment.  Under Section 13B, any medical qualification
\ngranted by the colleges established without the prior
\npermission of the Central Government is not a recognized
\nmedical qualification.  The reasonable reading of Section
\n13C(1) puts the existing colleges at par with the new
\ncolleges as both of them are required to seek permission
\nwithin three years from the commencement of the Amending
\nAct.  The phrase on or before has made it clear that the
\nexisting colleges are also required to seek permission and
\nthere is no exemption.  Section 13C(2) further provides
\nthat the medical qualification granted by  existing
\ncolleges whose establishment has not been recognized by the
\nCentral Government, the medical qualification would not be
\na recognized qualification.  Similar requirement is to be
\nfulfilled by the new medical colleges opened, i.e., to seek
\npermission of the Central Government for the medical
\nqualification to be recognized qualification.  Thus, new
\ncolleges or existing colleges cannot any more grant a
\nrecognized qualification without the sanction of the
\nCentral Government.  Section 13C(2) does not say that the
\neffect of non-permission by the Central Government to the
\nexisting colleges after the Amending Act came into force
\nwould render the medical qualifications already granted by
\nthe existing colleges before the insertion of Sections 13A,
\n13B and 13C in 2003, un-recognised.  The whole spectrum of
\nthe amendment brought about by introducing Sections 13A,
\n13B and 13C indicates that it has an application from the
\ndate they have been introduced by an amendment in the 1970
\nCentral Act.  The effect of the amendment brought about is
\nclear to us that all the medical colleges which are in
\nexistence or the medical colleges which have to be
\nestablished should compulsorily seek permission of the
\nCentral Government within the period provided and on
\nfailure to get the permission of the Central Government the
\nmedical qualification granted to any student of such
\nmedical college shall not be a recognized medical
\nqualification for the purposes of the 1970 Act.  The
\nestablished colleges are also required to seek permission
\nof the Central Government for the medical qualification to
\nbe recognized medical qualification but it would not mean
\nthat the already conferred medical qualification of the
\nstudents studied in such previously established medical
\ncolleges would not be a recognised medical qualification
\nunder the 1970 Act.\n<\/p>\n
28.\t\tOn a reasonable construction of these Sections,
\nwe hold that the provisions of Section 13B whereby the
\nqualification granted to any student of a medical college
\nwould not be deemed to be a recognized medical
\nqualification would not apply.   When a degree has been
\nlegally conferred on the students prior to the commencement
\nof the Amending Act of 2003, it shall be treated as a
\nrecognized degree although the medical college has not
\nsought permission of the Central Government within a period
\nof three years from the commencement of the Amending Act of
\n2003.\n<\/p>\n
29.\tFor the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed.
\nThe judgment of the High Court is set aside and we hold
\nthat the GAMS degree conferred on the appellant-students
\nshall be treated as a recognized degree for the purposes of
\ntaking admission to the higher courses of study and also
\nfor the purposes of employment.\n<\/p>\n
30.\tThere shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic … vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007 Author: P Naolekar Bench: B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4643 of 2003 PETITIONER: Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine RESPONDENT: State of Bihar & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/11\/2007 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199655","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBihar State Council Of Ayurvedic ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-16T12:36:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic … vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T12:36:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":7697,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T12:36:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic … vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-16T12:36:56+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic … vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T12:36:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007"},"wordCount":7697,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007","name":"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T12:36:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bihar-state-council-of-ayurvedic-vs-state-of-bihar-ors-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bihar State Council Of Ayurvedic … vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199655","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=199655"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199655\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}