J. H. BHATIA, J. :- All petitions may be disposed of by common judgment. These petitions may be divided in three groups. In the Writ Petition Nos. 5526/95, 1388/96,4341/96,7648/2000, 1579/2002, 2575/2003, 9160/2003, 9162/2003,9178/2003, 847/2006, 2025/2006, 3047/2006, 377/2001, 5584/2006, 6537/2006,OSWP Nos. 407/1992, 3693/1991 and 452/2005 the petitioners claim to 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 Sammelarr Allahabad and some other institutions, whose degrees and diplomas are not recognised in Schedule II of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 (In short The Central Act). Most of them claim to have been registered with the State Council of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. These degrees and diplomas in Ayurveda conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag after 1967 and all the degrees and diplomas conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad are not recognised qualification for the purpose of practice in Indian Medicines. They are prohibited from practicing as such in the State of Maharashtra by virtue of the Provisions of Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1951 (for short Maharashtra Act as well as the Central Act). They also apprehend prosecution at the instance of the State of Maharashtra and its officers on the ground that they are practicing without necessary qualifications and registration. In this group of petitions the petitioners claim that the degrees and diplomas held by them should be recognised by setting aside certain remarks from Schedule II of Central Act and the State of Maharashtra be directed to register them under Maharashtra Act. They also seek declaration that the provisions of section 17 (3A), 18, 33 of the Maharashtra Act, are discriminatory, arbitrary and ultra vires the constitution and they are inconsistent and repugnant to the provisions of section 29 of the Central Act and that section 25 of the Central Act is also unreasonable and discriminatory.

2. In second group of writ petitions, Writ Petition Nos. 7184/98, 2104/06, 3035/06, 3232/06, 3034/06, 472/06, 8707/05, 439/06,459/06, 851/06 and 8899/05, the petitioners claim to be practicing in Ayurved on the basis of long experience and in view of the provisions of section 37 of the Maharashtra Act though they do not claim to hold any qualifications prescribed for Ayurvedic practice under the Central Act or the Maharashtra Act. As they are not registered medical practitioners, they are apprehending prosecution in view of a letter dated 19th February, 1998, issued by Medical Education and Drugs Department, Government of Maharashtra. Pending these petitions section 37 of the Maharashtra Act came to be deleted from the Maharashtra Act, by Maharashtra Medical Practitioners (Amendment), Act, 2005. In some of these petitions the said amendment is also challenged on the ground that in spite of deletion of section 37, the State Government has not made any amendment in section 33, whereby the Government has still retained powers to grant exemption from the provisions of Maharashtra Act in respect of registration as a condition for practice.

3. In third group of writ petitions, Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1507/94, 237/95, and W.P. 128/96, 129/96, 3461/96, 5591/97, 6243/98, 2236/06, the petitioners claim to hold degrees or diplomas in Electropathy or HomeoElectropathy. They are also not registered Medical Practitioners under the Maharashtra Act or the Central Act. According to them, they do not require any such registration but in spite of this, by letter dated 30th March, 1994 issued by Medical Education and Drugs Department of Government of Maharashtra, they are either facing prosecution or they are apprehending prosecution for practicing Electropathy or Homeo-Electropathy for want of recognised qualifications and registration as Medical Practitioners under the Maharashtra Act. They seek to quash the said le