ORDER

Leave granted in both the matters. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The propriety and validity of the public notice issued by the Director, Health Services, Delhi Administration indicating that the Indian Medicine Central Council had recognised Ayurved Ratna and Vaid Visharad degrees awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammalan Paryag, Allahabad only upto 1967 and The certificate of Ayurved Ratna and Vaid Visharada given by the said organization after 1967 not being recognised under the said Act registration obtained by any person as a medical practitioner on the basis of such degrees therefore would not be recognised and any person having such qualification would not be entitled to practice in Delhi are impugned in these appeals. It was also indicated in the said public notice that no Indian University or Board conducts one year s course for giving the bachelor s degree in Ayurvedic Medicine or through correspondence course no M.D. Degree in Ayurved was conferred by any university or Board. The public at large was cautioned by the said public notice published in the newspaper about such position in law.

3. The Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners Association moved a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the said public notice issued by the Health Services, Delhi Administration. Similar Writ Petition was moved by Dr. Swarup Singh and others challenging the said public notice. Such writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court by indicating that as in the Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970 the said degrees had not been recognised after 1967 and the writ petitioners before the High Court had obtained such degrees from the said Hindi Sahitya Sammalan Prayag long after the said Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 was enforced they were not entitled to practice on the basis of the degrees obtained from the said Hindi Sahitya Sammalan Prayag. Therefore there was no occasion to interfere with the direction contained in the public notice and the writ petitions were accordingly dismissed.

4. Mr. S.K. Mehta the learned counsel appearing in the appellants in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 8103 of 1993 has submitted that the Hindi Sahitya Sammalan Prayag is an old and reputed institution and such institution had been giving the said degrees of Ayurvedic Ratna and Vaid Visharada from a long time and such degrees awarded by the said institution had been recognised in various states Dr. Mehta has further submitted that about the qualifications of the Medical Practitioners in various disciplines, namely, Homeopathic, Unani, Ayurvedic etc. both the State Govt. and Central Govt. have competence to legislate because the subject is in the concurrent list. Various States have recognised the degrees awarded by the said Hindi Sahitya Sammalan and on the basis of such degrees, large number of practitioners in the discipline of Ayurved have been registered in various States including Delhi and have been successfully practicing in the discipline of Ayurved. The writ petitioners also got themselves registered in the State of Delhi and they had been practicing as Medical Practitioner in the discipline of Ayurved on the strength of such registration. Therefore their registrations could not be held as invalid or liable to be cancelled. In this connection, Mr. Mehta has submitted that even under the said Act of 1970 there was no bar for the writ petitioners or persons similarly circumstanced to get themselves registered and practice in the discipline of Ayurved. He has drawn our attention to the provisions of Section 17(3)(a) (b) and (c) of the said Central Act 1970. It is appropriate to refer to the said provisions for appreciating true legal import of such provisions.

5. 17(3) : Nothing contained in sub section (2) shall affect:-

(a) the right of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine to practice India