Back
Supreme Court Of India
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
Udai Singh Dagar & Ors-PETITIONER
Versus
Union of India & Ors-RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (civil) 4 of 2005
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2537 OF 2007
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11880 of 2006]
Decided On : 15/05/2007
INDIAN VETERINARY COUNCIL ACT, 1984 - SECTION 30 - APPLICABILITY - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - REASONABLE RESTRICTION - ARTICLE 19(6) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - SECTION 6 - APPLICABILITY - SAVING OF RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES - VESTED OR ACCRUED RIGHT - INCHOATE RIGHT - REGISTRATION OF VETERINARY PRACTITIONERS - REGULATION 3 OF THE MAHARASHTRA VETERINARY PRACTITIONERS (CONDITIONS FOR REGISTRATION OF PERSONS ACTUALLY CONDUCTING VETERINARY PRACTICE) REGULATIONS 1981 - PURPOSE AND SCOPE - RIGHT TO PRACTICE OR RIGHT TO BE IN SERVICE - DEPENDENCE ON REGISTRATION - EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE - STATUS AND PROTECTION UNDER ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - CONTINUATION IN SERVICE - MINOR VETERINARY SERVICES - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 30(B) OF THE CENTRAL ACT - SCOPE AND EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, representing similarly placed veterinary practitioners from several States and Union Territories of India, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India and the concerned States, challenging the constitutionality and applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (Central Act) and seeking the revocation and declaration of the impugned Section 30 and Rule No. 37/45 of Indian Veterinary Practitioners Regulation, 1992, as void. The petitioners contended that the Central Act, insofar as it purports to take away their right to practice or to be continued in service, imposes an unreasonable restriction interfering with their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on veterinary practice or continue to be in the service of the State. They also argued that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, should be applied to save their rights and liabilities accrued prior to the coming into force of the Central Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 30 of the Central Act constitute a reasonable restriction within the meaning of the first part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India and the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) thereof. The Court observed that the State has the legislative competence to lay down the qualification for practicing veterinary medicine and that the Central Act is flexible and provides for the extension of recognition to other institutions if they satisfy the tests. The Court further held that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, would not be attracted in this case as the Central Act manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the repealed State Act. The Court also held that the right of the petitioners to practice in the field of veterinary practice has expressly been taken away and that the question of applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not arise at all.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (Central Act) imposes an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to practice veterinary medicine under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, are applicable to save the rights and liabilities accrued prior to the coming into force of the Central Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 30 of the Central Act constitute a reasonable restriction within the meaning of the first part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India and the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) thereof. The State has the legislative competence to lay down the qualification for practicing veterinary medicine and the Central Act is flexible and provides for the extension of recognition to other institutions if they satisfy the tests. 2. The provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, would not be attracted in this case as the Central Act manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the repealed State Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition and the civil appeal were dismissed, subject to the observations and directions of the Court. The Court held that those certificate holders who are in the services of the State or the other semi-government organizations are entitled to continue in service, subject to carrying out their duties strictly in terms of the notification issued by the State under clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act.
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J :
1. Leave granted in S.L.P.
2. Constitutionality and/ or applicability of the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for short "the Central Act") is in question herein.
3. Before, however, embarking on the questions involved, we may at the outset notice that the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11880 of 2006 arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ Petition No. 4619 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein in regard to the applicability of Section 30 of the Central Act was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the following prayers were made:
(a)the declaration that the non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who are registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971 (for short to be referred as "the State Veterinary Act") are eligible to practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner and on such conditions as they were prior to coming into force of the Indian Veterinary Councils Act, 1984 ("Central Veterinary Act" for short) in the State of Maharashtra;
(b)to declare that non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who are eligible to be registered under the State Veterinary Act will be permitted to practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner and on such conditions as they were prior to the coming into force of the Central Veterinary Act in the State of Maharashtra; and
(c)for directions to renew the registration of non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners in the register maintained by the State Council under the State Veterinary Act til the coming into force of the Central Veterinary Act.
4. The Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners representing similarly placed veterinary practitioners from several States and Union Territories of India against the Union of India as also the concerned States praying inter alia for the following reliefs:
"a) issue an appropriate writ revoking and declaring null and void the impugned Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and
b) issue an appropriate writ revoking and declaring null and void Rule No. 37/45 of Indian Veterinary Practitioners Regulation, 1992.
*********
l) issue a writ of mandamus/ any other appropriate writ, order or directions restraining the
Respondents from acting/ giving effect to the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and Rule No. 37/45 of Indian Veterinary Practitioners Regulation, 1992 and the above notifications mentioned in prayer clause (c) to (k) above."
In the writ petition, prayers have also been made for revoking and declaring notifications issued by the respective State Governments in terms of Section 30 of the Central Act as void.
5. We will, however, record the facts of the matter from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11880 of 2006.
Appellant is an Association registered under the Trade Unions Act. It purports to represent the Veterinary Practitioners of the State of Maharashtra. The subject of legislation was a State subject. The States of Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, however, adopted a resolution purported to be in terms of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India requesting the Union of India to make a parliamentary legislation to the effect that the matter may be regulated in those States by
Parliamentary Act. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said resolution, Parliament enacted the Central Act being Act No. 52 of 1984. It came into force with effect from 18th August, 1984. It was enacted with a view to regulate veterinary practice and to provide, for that purpose, for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of the veterinary practitioners and
for matters connected therewith.
6. We may hereafter notice some of the provisions
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
