IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. SAHI, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
Dr. K.M. Senthamizhselvan, State President, Ayush Medical Welfare Association, Thiruvannamalai - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 6547 of 2020 & W.M.P. No. 7771 of 2020
Decided On : 17-06-2020
Mandamus - Clinical Establishment Rules - TN Clinical Establishments Act/Rules - Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 - Tamil Nadu Registration of Practitioners of Integrated Medicine Act, 1956 - Tamil Nadu Homeopathy System of Medicine and Practitioners of Homeopathy Act, 1971 - Tamil Nadu Siddha System of Medicine (Development and Registration of Practitioners) Act, 1997 - G.O.Ms. No.206 Health and Family Welfare (Z2) dated 01.06.2018 - Rules 6, Annexure 1 - The court discussed the conflict between the TN Clinical Establishment Rules and the relevant legislations governing the practice of different systems of medicine, including integrated medicine. It highlighted the inability of the Petitioner to register clinical establishments for practicing integrated medicine under the existing rules and the public interest served by the minimum facilities specified in the Rules. The court concluded that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to amend rules and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, State President of the Ayush Medical Welfare Association, sought a writ to direct the 3rd Respondent to dispose of a representation and amend the rules framed under G.O. Ms. No.206 Health and Family Welfare (Z2) dated 01.06.2018 to enable the practice of integrated medicine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to amend rules and that the Petitioner failed to establish a conflict between the extant legislations and the TN Clinical Establishments Rules.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the Petitioner to register clinical establishments for practicing integrated medicine under the existing rules and the maintainability of the writ petition for amending the rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to amend rules and that the Petitioner failed to establish a conflict between the extant legislations and the TN Clinical Establishments Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ or order or direction or any other nature of writ to direct the 3rd Respondent herein to dispose of the representation dated 12.09.2018 and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent by bringing and including the association for necessary amendments relating to the Unani system of medicine and surgery in the rules framed in G.O. Ms. No.206 Health and Family Welfare (Z2) dated 01.06.2018 and pass such other suitable orders and thus render justice.)
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The Petitioner is the State President of the Ayush Medical Welfare Association (the Association). The acronym, Ayush, represents ayurveda, yoga, unani, siddha and homeopathy. On 1 June 2018, the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, issued G.O.Ms. No.206, Health and Family Welfare (Z2), whereby rules were framed under section 14 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997 (the TN Clinical Establishments Act/Rules, as the case may be). The TN Clinical Establishments Rules provide for the registration of clinical establishments. Rule 6 stipulates that every clinical establishment should fulfil the requirements specified in Annexure 1. Annexure 1 specifies the requisite facilities for allopathic clinical establishments under Part A and for clinical establishments that practice the Indian system of medicine or homeopathy under Part B.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that the members of the Association are qualified to practice different systems of medicine such as ayurveda, yoga, unani, siddha and homeopathy under various legislations such as the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, the Tamil Nadu Registration of Practitioners of Integrated Medicine Act, 1956, the Tamil Nadu Homeopathy System of Medicine and Practitioners of Homeopathy Act, 1971 and the Tamil Nadu Siddha System of Medicine (Development and Registration of Practitioners) Act, 1997. By virtue of their qualifications, they are also qualified to practice integrated medicine, i.e. by combining one of the systems of Indian medicine with allopathy.
3. According to the Petitioner, the TN Clinical Establishment Rules are contrary to the aforesaid legislations in as much as the members of the Association are unable to register their clinical establishments for the purpose of practising integrated medicine. It is contended that the parent legislations permit duly qualified practitioners to practice integrated medicine along with the specific system of Indian medicine in which such person is qualified. Therefore, a mandamus is prayed for in order to amend the TN Clinical Establishment Rules.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP on behalf of the Respondents. The learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the statements in the affidavit and contended that the members of the Association are duly qualified under relevant legislation to practice not only the systems of Indian medicine but also integrated medicine. The statutory right of the members of the Petitioner Association is infringed by the TN Clinical Establishment Rules, which do not provide for the registration of a clinical establishment for the purpose of practising integrated medicine. The Petitioner submitted a representation, in this regard, on 12.09.2018 and the rejection thereof is, therefore, unlawful and, consequently, the Petitioner is entitled to a direction to amend the rules. The learned counsel also pointed out that this Court ordered a status quo in another writ petition seeking similar relief.
5. On the contrary, the contention of the learned AGP is that the members of the Association are not entitled to register a clinical establishment for the purpose of practising anything other than the specific system of Indian medicine in which such members are qualified. The rules provide for mi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.