H.G. Ramesh, J.

1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure-A) and the notice dated 04.10.2011 (Annexure-B), whereby, the petitioners are held to be not qualified to practise medicine, and hence, their medical clinics are ordered to be closed. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is stated that the petitioners are qualified to practise Electro Homeopathy system of medicine, and in support thereof, learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the two certificates, both dated 12.05.2004 at Annexures-C & D, issued to the petitioners by the Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy, Bangalore, two other certificates at Annexures-E & F, a letter dated 14.02.2011 of the Deputy Secretary, Government of India at Annexure-H, and also an order dated 05.05.2010 at Annexure-J issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India.

2. As could be seen from a Division Bench decision of this Court in K.S.E. Homeopathy R & D Assn. Vs. K.A. & U.P. Board, 2009(4) Kar.L.J. 505, Electro Homeopathy is not recognised as an alternative system of medicine. In the said decision, it is stated that the certificates issued by the Directorate of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy, Bangalore, to practise Electro Homeopathy system of medicine have been withdrawn pursuant to the order of the Central Government dated 25.11.2003.

3. In Karnataka, medical profession is regulated by the Karnataka Ayurvedic, Naturopathy, Siddha, Unani and Yoga Practitioners' Registration and Medical Practitioners' Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Section 34(1) of the Act requires to be noticed:

"34. Medical Practitioners not registered under this Act or under certain laws not to practise, etc.-(1) No person other than (i) a practitioner registered under Chapter II of this Act or (ii) a practitioner registered under the Karnataka Medical Registration Act, 1961 or the Karnataka Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1961 or a practitioner whose name is for the time being borne on the Indian Medical Register maintained under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or (iii) a person whose name is entered in the list mentioned in Section 18, shall practise or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practising for personal gain any system of medicine, surgery or midwifery."

A plain reading of Section 34(1) of the Act extracted above shows that it prohibits all persons, not falling within the three categories referred to therein, from practising any system of medicine for personal gain. It is relevant to state that Medical profession is a matter enumerated in list III (concurrent list) in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. As the Act has received the assent of the President on 4 March 1962, the Act will prevail in the State, as laid down in Article 254 of the Constitution, over any law made by Parliament.

On being asked by this Court, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not fall under any of the three categories referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act. If that be so, the petitioners are prohibited under Section 34(1) of the Act from practising any system of medicine in the State of Karnataka. The several documents referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are of no avail to the petitioners in view of the mandatory provision of law extracted above. Hence, the impugned order and the notice do not warrant interference. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.