Judgment :-

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In these appeals challenge is to the final judgment of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants while granting the limited relief to those writ petitioners who hold degree or diploma in Electropathy or Homeo-Electropathy. Though their writ petitions were dismissed it was made clear that so far as those who hold degree or diploma in Electropathy or Homeo-Electropathy may practice in Electropathy or Electrotherapy without registration as medical practitioners but they would not be entitled to practice as or claim to be medical practitioners, doctors etc and they were also not entitled to use any title, like Dr. or any abbreviations prefixing or suffixing their names which may indicate that they are doctors or medical practitioners. Three categories of persons filed the writ petitioners before the High Court. They are as follows:

(i) The persons who hold either the degree or diploma of Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna or some other equivalent degree awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad and some other institutions whose degree and diplomas are not recognised in Schedule II of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970.

(ii) The persons who claim to be practicising in Ayurved on the basis of long experience.

(iii) The persons who claim to hold degrees or diplomas in Electropathy or Homeo-Electropathy.

3. The present appeals relate to the first and second category. The first category relate to Civil Appeal Nos.1337/2007, 1338/2007, 1339/2007, 1884/2007, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.19079/2007, Civil Appeal 2769/2007, 2807/2007, 4196/2007, 4982/2007 and the second category relates to Civil Appeal Nos.3543/2008, 4064/2007 and 2810/2007.

4. Stand of the appellants in essence is that they were registered as practitioners under the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 (in short the ‘Bihar Act) in terms of the Schedule as referred to under Sections 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Their names were entered in the register as registered practitioners. Though they did not hold any degree or diploma or certificate of any recognised institution they possess sufficient knowledge and skill requisite for educational practice of medicines, surgery and have acquired certain amount of eminence in the medical science and also fulfill the conditions imposed by the regulations made by the Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines (in short the ‘Council). They were practicising in different places mostly in rural places of Maharashtra. Section 21 of the Bihar Act refers to the maintenance of registers. Section 22 deals with persons entitled to be registered. Under the said provision every person possessing any of the qualifications specified in the Schedule shall subject to the provisions contained in the Bihar Act and on payment of the prescribed fees be entitled to have his name entered in the register subject to such conditions as the Council may impose. Undisputedly, the names of the appellants have been entered in the registers and they have been registered. The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (in short the ‘Central Act) was introduced in 1970. Prior to that the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Maharashtra Act) was enacted and was in force. The appellants claim that they belong to the third category as enumerated in the Schedule. The Presidential assent to the Bihar Act was given on 12th September, 1951. Under the Central Act, the Central registers in terms of Section 2(1)(d) has to be maintained. Section 2(1)(j) refers to the State Register. It is submitted that Section 17 of the Central Act is of considerable relevance. Section 17 (1) refers to possession of medical qualifications included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules for enrolment in the State Register of Indian Medicine. It is pointed out that Section 17(2) refers to recognised