ORDER

1. This Review Petition has been preferred by the applicant on the 1. ground that when the matter was heard, its counsel was not present and therefore, the judgment has been rendered against the applicant in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and this Court must entertain the Review Petition recalling its judgment and order impugned herein and decide the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

2. In fact, this case has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 19.11.2008 passed by Delhi High Court dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1999 of 1998 rejecting the claim of the applicant and its members that they are entitled to practice in the field of Medical Sciences on the basis of the qualification of Ayurveda Rattan & Vaid Visharad awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad.

3. The appeal of the applicant came for hearing alongwith a bunch of matters, i.e., Civil Appeal Nos. 5324 of 2007; 5325 of 2007; 4758 of 2010; and 4759 of 2010, wherein the similar issues were involved. The matter had been argued at length by a large number of advocates in the other appeals and all the appeals were dismissed by an elaborate impugned judgment and order dated 1.6.2010, i.e. Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2010 SC 2221, wherein this Court reached the following conclusions:

(i) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/Deemed University nor an Educational Board.

(ii) It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act.

(iii) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or any other branch of medical science.

(iv) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor is the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan affiliated to any University/Board.

(v) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt has ever been made by the Society to get recognition as required under Section 14 of the Act, 1970, and further did not seek modification of entry No. 105 in II Schedule to the Act, 1970.

(vi) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has some elementary/basic education or has attended classes in Ayurveda in any recognized college.

(vii) After commencement of Act, 1970, a person not possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice.

(viii) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough to make him eligible to practice.

(ix) The right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute, and thus, is subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

(x) Restriction on the right to practice without possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act.

4. When the Review Petition of the applicant came before the Court by circulation on 27.1.2011, the Court passed the following order:

It may be desirable that before we entertain/ consider the review petition, the learned Counsel for the applicant may explain as to whether the advocate, other than the Advocate-on-Record at the time of the disposal of the case, can file a review petition in the light of the judgment reported in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar and Anr. AIR 1997 SC 1005; and further when the Court has heard a bunch of petitions, and disposed them all by a common judgment, whether review by the parties in one of the case can be filed on the ground that its lawyer could not make submissions.

List after two weeks.

5. The applicant filed a reply to the same contending that the aforesaid judgment referred to by this Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. (supra) has no application in this case for the rea