MARKANDEYA KATJU, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgement dated 10. 9. 2005 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed WP (C) no. 1636/2000

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 3 ) THE facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating them here except where necessary.

( 4 ) THE writ petitioners (appellants herein) claimed that they have completed four years Diploma Course in Unani Medicine (DUM) from an institute in Saharanpur and passed this examination in 1995 and thereafter they claimed to have registered with the Bharatiya Chikitsa Parishad, UP.

( 5 ) IN para 7 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioners submitted their forms duly filled with money Order receipts vide Annexure p-1 to the writ petition and sent them to respondent No. 2, the Registrar, board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, New Delhi in May 1999 to get registered under schedule 5, but the respondents are sleeping over the matter and have not passed any orders in favour of the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners made a representation for grant of registration, but to no avail. The petitioners have alleged that respondent no. 2 is duty bound to provide registration certificate to the petitioners as hakim in Unani system of medicine as they are eligible and qualified and have completed all the formalities.

( 6 ) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, Board of ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, New Delhi. It is alleged therein that the writ petition filed by the present petitioners is not maintainable as the petitioners have concealed material facts. The case of the petitioners was that they are governed by the East Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners Act,1949, which is extended to Delhi and hence they are entitled to registration. However, the respondents have submitted that after the enactment of the Indian Medicines Central Council Act,1970, the petitioners are governed by the said 1970 Act. The institution from which the petitioners got diploma is not recognized under the Indian Medicine central Council Act,1970.

( 7 ) IT is alleged that the Indian Medicine Central Council Act,1970 covers the field of Indian medicines and it will prevail over any State Act relating to Indian medicines. Hence, any registration certificate issued by the State council under the State Act is no longer valid and is liable to be cancelled because it is the Central Act of 1970 which is applicable all over the country. It is alleged that the Board which granted diploma to the petitioners is not recognized under the Indian Medicines Central Council Act,1970, The matter has been decided by the Supreme Court vide Delhi Pradesh registered Medical Practitioners v. Delhi Admn, Director of Health services and Others, AIR 1998 SC 67 and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is alleged that the Central Act of 1970 prevails over and supercedes the East Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1949, It is denied that the respondents have been sleeping over the matter. The respondents put up the matter before the meeting of the Board under the central Act of 1970 which decided that the diploma held by the petitioners is not recognized by the Central Council under the Indian Medicines Central council Act, 1970 and hence the petitioners are not entitled to register themselves as Hakims in Delhi.

( 8 ) THE respondents considered the petitioners applications under section 17 of the Central Act and found that the petitioners are not eligible for registration. It is denied that the act of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

( 9 ) A counter affidavit has also been filed by the Central Council of Indian medicine and we have perused the same.

( 10 ) THE main objects of the Central Council under the 1970 Act are as follows:- (a) To prescribe the minimum standards of education in Indian syste

Click Here to Read the rest of this document