{"id":242015,"date":"1997-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997"},"modified":"2016-08-12T15:56:39","modified_gmt":"2016-08-12T10:26:39","slug":"delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997","title":{"rendered":"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical &#8230; vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health &#8230; on 17 October, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical &#8230; vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health &#8230; on 17 October, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: G.N. Ray, G.B. Pattanaik<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nDELHI PRADESH REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ETC., SWAROOP\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDELHI ADMN. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t17\/10\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nG.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t       THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997<br \/>\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tHon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice G.N.Ray<br \/>\n\t\tHon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice G.B.Pattanaik<br \/>\nO.P.Sharma, Sr.\t Adv.,\tMrs.  Sona  Khan,  Moh.\t Sajid\tArun<br \/>\nKaushal, Goodwill Indeevar, S.K.Mehta, D.Mehta, Fazlin Anam,<br \/>\nMs. Shobha  Verma, R.C.\t Gubrele, Mrs.\tSarla Chandra,\tK.R.<br \/>\nGupta, Vivek  Sharma, and  Ashok Sudan,\t Advs., with him for<br \/>\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>P.P.Malhotra,  Sr.  Adv.,  Rajeev  Sharma,  D.S.Mehra,\tDive<br \/>\nSingh, Devendra\t Singh, D.K.  Garg, Satpal  Singh, Advs with<br \/>\nhim for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     The following order of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t    AND<br \/>\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7442 OF 1997<br \/>\n\t(Arising out of S.L.P. [c] No. 8103 of 1993<br \/>\n     Leave granted  in both  the  matters.    Heard  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The propriety  and validity of the public notice issued<br \/>\nby  the\t Director,  Health  Services,  Delhi  Administration<br \/>\nindicating that\t the Indian  Medicine  Central\tCouncil\t had<br \/>\nrecognised Ayurved  Ratna and  Vaid Visharad degrees awarded<br \/>\nby the\tHindi Sahitya  Sammalan Paryag,\t Allahabad only upto<br \/>\n1967 and The certificate of Ayurved Ratna and Vaid visharada<br \/>\ngiven  by   the\t said  organization  after  1967  not  being<br \/>\nrecognised under  the said  Act registration obtained by any<br \/>\nperson as  a medical  practitioner  on\tthe  basis  of\tsuch<br \/>\ndegrees therefore  would not  be recognised  and any  person<br \/>\nhaving such  qualification would not be entitled to practice<br \/>\nin Delhi  are impugned\tin  these  appeals.    It  was\talso<br \/>\nindicated  in\tthe  said   public  notice  that  no  Indian<br \/>\nUniversity or  Board conducts  one year&#8217;s  course for giving<br \/>\nthe bachelor&#8217;s\tdegree\tin  Ayurvedic  Medicine\t or  through<br \/>\ncorrespondence\tcourse\t no  M.D.   Degree  in\tAyurved\t was<br \/>\nconferred by  any university  or Board.\t The Public at large<br \/>\nwas cautioned  by the  said public  notice published  in the<br \/>\nnewspaper about such position in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Delhi\tPradesh\t Registered  Medical  Practitioners&#8217;<br \/>\nAssociation moved  a writ  petition before  the\t Delhi\thigh<br \/>\nCourt Challenging  the validity\t of he\tsaid  public  notice<br \/>\nissued\tby   the  Health   Services,  Delhi  Administration.<br \/>\nSimilar Writ  Petition was  moved by  Dr. Swarup  Singh\t and<br \/>\nothers challenging  the\t said  public  notice.\t  Such\twrit<br \/>\npetitions were\tdismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court  by indicating  that as  in the  Indian  Medicine<br \/>\nCentral Council\t Act 1970  the said  degrees  had  not\tbeen<br \/>\nrecognised after  1967 and  the writ  petitioners before the<br \/>\nHigh Court  had obtained  such degree  from the\t said  Hindi<br \/>\nSahitya Sammalan  Prayag long after the said Indian Medicine<br \/>\nCentral\t Council  Act,\t1970  was  enforced  they  were\t not<br \/>\nentitled to  practice on  the basis  of the degrees obtained<br \/>\nfrom the  said Hindi  Sahitya Sammalan\tPrayag.\t   Therefore<br \/>\nthere was  no  occasion\t to  interfere\twith  the  direction<br \/>\ncontained in  the public  notice and the writ petitions were<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. S.K.  Mehta the  learned counsel  appearing in\t the<br \/>\nappellants in  the appeal arising out of SLP [C] No. 8103 of<br \/>\n1993 has submitted that the Hindi Sahitya Sammalan Prayag is<br \/>\nan old and reputed institution and such institution had been<br \/>\ngiving\tthe   said  degrees  of\t Ayurvedic  Ratna  and\tVaid<br \/>\nVisharada from\ta long\ttime and such degrees awarded by the<br \/>\nsaid institution had been recognised in various states.\t Dr.<br \/>\nMehta has further submitted that about the qualifications of<br \/>\nthe Medical  Practitioners in  various disciplines,  namely,<br \/>\nHomeopathic, Unani,  Ayurvedic etc. both the State Govt. and<br \/>\nCentral Govt.  have  competence\t to  legislate\tbecause\t the<br \/>\nsubject is  in the  concurrent list.   Various\tStates\thave<br \/>\nrecognised the\tdegree awarded\tby the\tsaid  Hindi  Sahitya<br \/>\nSammalan and  on the  basis of such degrees, large number of<br \/>\npractitioners  in   the\t discipline  of\t Ayurved  have\tbeen<br \/>\nregistered in  various States  including Delhi and have been<br \/>\nsuccessfully practicing\t in the\t discipline of Ayurved.\t The<br \/>\nwrit petitioners also got themselves registered in the State<br \/>\nof Delhi  and they had been practicing in the State or Delhi<br \/>\nand they  had been practicing as Medical Practitioner in the<br \/>\ndiscipline of  Ayurved on the strength of such registration.<br \/>\nTherefore their\t registrations could  not be held as invalid<br \/>\nor liable  to be  cancelled.   In this connection. Mr. Mehta<br \/>\nhas submitted that even under the said act of 1970 there was<br \/>\nno  bar\t for  the  writ\t petitioners  or  persons  similarly<br \/>\ncircumstanced to  get themselves  registered and practice in<br \/>\nthe discipline\tof Ayurved.   He  had drawn out attention to<br \/>\nthe provisions\tof Section  17(3)(a)(b) and  [c] of the said<br \/>\nCentral Act  1970.   it is  appropriate to refer to the said<br \/>\nprovisions  for\t appreciating  true  legal  import  of\tsuch<br \/>\nprovisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>     17 (3)  Nothing contained\tin  sub\t section  (2)  shall<br \/>\naffect:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     (a) the  right of a practitioner of<br \/>\n     Indian medicine enrolled on a State<br \/>\n     Register  of   Indian  Medicine  to<br \/>\n     practice  Indian  Medicine\t in  any<br \/>\n     State merely  on the ground that on<br \/>\n     the commencement  of this\tAct,  he<br \/>\n     does  not\t possess  a   recognised<br \/>\n     medical qualification:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (b) the  privileges (including  the<br \/>\n     right to  practice\t any  system  of<br \/>\n     medicine) conferred by or under any<br \/>\n     law  relating  to\tregistration  of<br \/>\n     practitioners  of\tIndian\tmedicine<br \/>\n     for the  time being in force in any<br \/>\n     State on  a practitioners of Indian<br \/>\n     medicine  enrolled\t  on   a   State<br \/>\n     Register of Indian Medicine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (c)  the\tright  of  a  person  to<br \/>\n     practice Indian Medicine in a State<br \/>\n     in which,\ton the\tcommencement  of<br \/>\n     this  Act,\t  a  state  register  of<br \/>\n     Indian Medicine  is not  maintained<br \/>\n     if a  such commencement he has been<br \/>\n     practicing Indian Medicine for less<br \/>\n     than five years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It has  been contended by Mr. Mehta that although a bar<br \/>\nhas been imposed under Section 17(2) to practice in India in<br \/>\nthe discipline\tof  Ayrveda  if\t the  practitioner  did\t not<br \/>\npossess the qualifications enumerated in the schedules under<br \/>\nthe Indian  Medicine Central  Council  Act,  1970  but\tsub-<br \/>\nsection (3) of Section 17 has carved out an exception to the<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tSection\t 17(2)\tof  the\t said  Act.    if  a<br \/>\npractitioner in\t the discipline\t of Ayurveda is enrolled and<br \/>\nregistered as  a medical practitioner in any state in India,<br \/>\nor such\t practitioner was already in the field practicing in<br \/>\nAyurveda or  such person  had a\t right to  be enrolled then,<br \/>\nsuch person  was protected and his rights or privileges as a<br \/>\nmedical practitioner cannot be affected because according to<br \/>\nMr. Mehta  Clause (b)  of  sub-section\t(3)  of\t Section  17<br \/>\nprotects the  privilege including  the right to practice any<br \/>\nsystem of  medicine conference\tthe right  to  practice\t any<br \/>\nsystem of medicine conferred by or under any law relating to<br \/>\nthe registration of practitioners of Indian Medicine for the<br \/>\ntime being  enforced if in any State  practitioner of Indian<br \/>\nMedicine is  enrolled on  a State  register.   Mr. Mehta Has<br \/>\nsubmitted that\tas the\tconcerned  practitioners  have\tbeen<br \/>\nregistered  as\t the  practitioners  in\t the  discipline  of<br \/>\nAyurveda, they\thave right to practice in such discipline as<br \/>\nregistered medical  practitioners  and\tprivileges  which  a<br \/>\nregistered practitioner\t has have  been\t protected  by\tsub-<br \/>\nsection (3)  of Section\t 17. Therefore,\t notwithstanding non<br \/>\nrecognition of the said degrees conferred by the said Prayag<br \/>\nHindi Sahitya  Sammalan after 1967, the right to practice as<br \/>\nregistered medical practitioner and consequential privileges<br \/>\nof a  registered practitioner  cannot be  taken away.\t The<br \/>\npublic notice,\ttherefore was  misconceived and\t illegal and<br \/>\nthe Delhi High Court has failed to appreciate the true legal<br \/>\nimport of  sub section (3) of Section 17 of the said Act and<br \/>\nhas erroneously\t held  that  the  writ\tpetitioner  are\t not<br \/>\nentitled to  practice in Delhi because of the bar imposed by<br \/>\nthe Indian Medicine Central Act, 1970 for not possessing the<br \/>\nrequisite qualification as enumerated in the said Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are,  however, unable  to accept  such contention of<br \/>\nMr. Mehta,  sub-section (3)  of Section\t 17  of\t the  Indian<br \/>\nMedicine Central Act, 1970, in our view, only envisages that<br \/>\nwhere before  the enactment  of\t the  said  Indian  Medicine<br \/>\nCentral Act,  1970 on  the basis  of requisite qualification<br \/>\nwhich was  then recognised,  a person got himself registered<br \/>\nas medical  practitioner  in  the  disciplines\tcontemplated<br \/>\nunder the  said Act or in the absence of any requirement for<br \/>\nregistration such  person had been practicing for five years<br \/>\nor intended  to be  registered and  was also  entitled to be<br \/>\nregistered, the\t right of  such person\tto practice  in\t the<br \/>\nconcerned  discipline\tincluding  the\t privileges   of   a<br \/>\nregistered medical  practitioner stood protected even though<br \/>\nsuch practitioner  did not  posses  requisite  qualification<br \/>\nunder the  said Act  of 1970.  It may be indicated that such<br \/>\nview of\t ours is  reflected from  the  objects\tand  reasons<br \/>\nindicated for  introducing sub-section\t(3) of Section 17 in<br \/>\nthe act.  In the objects and reasons, it was mentioned:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8216;the committee  are of  the opinion<br \/>\n     that  the\t existing   rights   and<br \/>\n     privileges\t of   practitioners   of<br \/>\n     Indian  medicine  should  be  given<br \/>\n     adequate safeguards.  The Committee<br \/>\n     in order  to  achieve  the\t object,<br \/>\n     have added\t three new paragraphs to<br \/>\n     sub-section  (3)\tof  the\t  Clause<br \/>\n     protecting\t (I)   the   rights   to<br \/>\n     practice of  those practitioners of<br \/>\n     Indian medicine  who may not, under<br \/>\n     the proposed legislation, possess a<br \/>\n     recognised qualification subject to<br \/>\n     the condition that they are already<br \/>\n     enrolled on  a  State  register  of<br \/>\n     Indian  medicine  on  the\tdate  of<br \/>\n     commencement of  this Act, (ii) the<br \/>\n     privileges conferred on enrolled on<br \/>\n     a State  Register, under any law in<br \/>\n     force in  that State, and (iii) the<br \/>\n     right to  practice in  a  State  of<br \/>\n     those practitioners  who have  been<br \/>\n     practicing Indian\tmedicine in that<br \/>\n     State for\tnot less than five years<br \/>\n     where   no\t  register   of\t  Indian<br \/>\n     medicine was maintained earlier.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     As it  is not  the case  of any of the writ petitioners<br \/>\nthat they  had acquired\t the degree in between 1957 and 1970<br \/>\nor on  the date of enforcement of provisions of Section 7(2)<br \/>\nof the\tsaid Act  and got  themselves registered or acquired<br \/>\nright to  be registered, there is no question of getting the<br \/>\nprotection under  Sub-Section (3)  of Section 17 of the said<br \/>\nAct.   it is  to be  stated  here  that\t there\tis  also  no<br \/>\nchallenge as  to the  validity of the said Central Act, 1970<br \/>\nThe decision  of the  Delhi High  Court therefore  cannot be<br \/>\nassailed by  the appellants.   We  may indicate here that it<br \/>\nhas been  submitted by\tMr. Mehta  and also by Ms. Sona Khan<br \/>\nappearing  in  the  appeal  arising  out  of  special  leave<br \/>\npetition No.  6167 of 1993 that proper consideration had not<br \/>\nbeen given to the standard of education imparted by the said<br \/>\nHindi Sahitya  Sammalan Prayag and expertise acquired by the<br \/>\nholders\t of  the  aforesaid  degrees  awarded  by  the\tsaid<br \/>\ninstitution.   In any  event, when proper medical facilities<br \/>\nhave not  been made  available to  a large  number of poorer<br \/>\nsections  of   the  society,   then  ban   imposed  to\t the<br \/>\npractitioners like  the writ  petitioners  rendering  useful<br \/>\nservice to the needy and poor people was wholly unjustified.<br \/>\nIt  is\tnot  necessary\tfor  this  Court  to  consider\tsuch<br \/>\nsubmissions because  the same remains in the realm of policy<br \/>\ndecision of other constitutional functionaries.\t We may also<br \/>\nindicate here  that what  constitutes proper  education\t and<br \/>\nrequisite expertise  for a  practitioner in Indian Medicine,<br \/>\nmust be\t left  to  the\tproper\tauthority  having  requisite<br \/>\nknowledge in the subject.  As the decision of the Delhi High<br \/>\nCourt is  justified on\tthe face  of legal  position flowing<br \/>\nfrom the  said Central Act of 1970, we do not think that any<br \/>\ninterference by\t this Court  is called\tfor.   These  appals<br \/>\ntherefore are dismissed without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical &#8230; vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health &#8230; on 17 October, 1997 Bench: G.N. Ray, G.B. Pattanaik PETITIONER: DELHI PRADESH REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ETC., SWAROOP Vs. RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMN. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/10\/1997 BENCH: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 17TH [&hellip;]<\/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-242015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical ... vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health ... on 17 October, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical ... vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health ... on 17 October, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-12T10:26:39+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical &#8230; vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health &#8230; on 17 October, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T10:26:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1860,\"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\\\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997\",\"name\":\"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical ... vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health ... on 17 October, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T10:26:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical &#8230; vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health &#8230; on 17 October, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical ... vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health ... on 17 October, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical ... vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health ... on 17 October, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-12T10:26:39+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical &#8230; vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health &#8230; on 17 October, 1997","datePublished":"1997-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T10:26:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997"},"wordCount":1860,"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\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997","name":"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical ... vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health ... on 17 October, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T10:26:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/delhi-pradesh-registered-medical-vs-delhi-admn-director-of-health-on-17-october-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical &#8230; vs Delhi Admn. Director Of Health &#8230; on 17 October, 1997"}]},{"@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\/242015","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=242015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}