Heard learned counsel for the parties. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State to which Shri Arvind Vashishta learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file a rejoinder affidavit. Pleadings being complete matter is being heard finally.

2. All the petitioners before this Court are medical practitioners who are presently practicing in Dehradun. By means of the present writ petition, they have challenged the validity of various provisions of a Parliamentary Statute known as the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (from hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and the Rules framed therein by the State of Uttarakhand in the year 2015. Admittedly, the Act is on a subject, which is in the State List at Item No. 6, which reads as under:-

“6. Public health and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries.”

Considering that the subject matter of Legislation was a State subject, the Act has been passed by the Parliament in exercise of its power under Article 252 of the Constitution of India, which read as under:-

“252. Power of Parliament to legislate for two or more States by consent and adoption of such legislation by any other State.- (1) I