"Should persons who do not fulfill the prescribed qualifications and are not duly registered under the relevant statute be permitted to practice as Vaidyas?" This is the core of the controversy in this case.

2. We have a bunch of 46 petitions. Out of these, O.P. Nos. 27784 and 21923 of 2002 form one part and the remaining 44 petitions constitute the second part. In the first set of petitions, the main prayer is for a declaration that a person who does not possess the recognized qualification and is not registered under the Act is not entitled to practice medicine. In the second set of cases, the petitioners do not possess the prescribed qualifications. They are not even registered. Yet, the prayer is for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring that they are entitled "either to get exemption from section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 or to get registration under the provisions of the said Act. "The facts as averred in O. P. No. 27784 of 2002 (from the first set) may be briefly noticed.

3. The petitioner is a registered society. According to it, the State Legislature had enacted the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. The persons who had undergone the prescribed course of study and possessed the requisite qualifications were entitled to be registered and practice medicine. The qualifications, etc., as laid down under the Act, have been periodically amended. Later on, the Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970 was enacted. The purpose of both the statutes is to ensure that "edicine is not practiced by those who are were not qualified.."

4. The petitioner alleges that "there are several persons in the State of Kerala practicing Indian System of Medicine (ISM) without any qualification or registration." This is in flagrant violation of the provisions of section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. On this basis, the petitioner prays for a declaration that person who does not fulfill the qualification is not entitled to practice medicine. The claim in the connected case viz., O.P. No, 21923 of 2002 are on the same lines.

5. A brief reference to the factual position in the other set of cases is also relevant. The facts as the other set of cases are also relevant. The facts as averred in O.P. No. 4439 of 1999 may be briefly noticed.

This petition has been filed by 138 persons. They claim to be "Paramparya Vaidyas". They are practicing in Ayurveda, Siddha, Marma, Balachikitsa, Prakruthi Chikitsa, Yoga etc. The petitioner's claim that these methods had been in vogue for a long time. They have acquired knowledge and experience "from their Gurus and Parents" the petitioners have also stated that O.P. No. 11950 of 1996 had been filed in this court. It was disposed of by the order dated June 26, 1998 with a direction to the state Government (Ist respondent) to consider and decide the representation (Ext. P3). After the disposal of the writ petition, the Government had considered the advisability of enacting a comprehensive legislation governing the registration of Medical Practitioners. The bill called "Kerala Medical Practitioners Bill" was drafted. It could be promulgated only with the approval of Government of India. The matter was referred to the competent authority. Certain queries were made by the Government of India. In view of this position, the petitioners were informed that their representations could be considered only after the proposal for enacting the legislation is approved by the Central Government. Faced with this situation, the petitioners pray that they have no other remedy except to approach this court.

It is the case of the petitioners that section 38 of 1953 Act empowered the State Government "to permit any person to practice medicine without registration". The Government had exercised this power and granted exemption to various persons by different orders. Copies of the orders