WP(C) 4619/2003 Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 9^th August, 2010

+

W.P.(C) 4619/2003

DR.JAIPAL & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through Mr.Arvind Gupta with

Mr.Bipin Singhvi and Mr.Ankit

Chaudhary, Advocates

versus

GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents

Through Ms.Meera Bhatia, Adv. for GNCTD

Mr.Ashok Mahajan, Adv. for R-3.

Mr.T.K. Joseph, Adv. for R-4

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1.Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes

DIPAK MISRA, CJ

By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner has prayed for declaring Section 17(5) of the

Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998 (for short „the 1998 Act‟) as

ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(e), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of

India and Sections 17(3)(b) and 29 of the Indian Medicine Central

Council Act, 1970 (for brevity „the 1970 Act‟) and further to issue a

mandamus to the respondents not to give effect to Section 17(5) of the

1998 Act. That apart, a prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari

to quash the order dated 26^th June, 2003, Annexure P-3, passed by the

Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, the respondent No.3 herein, by which

2010:DHC:3921-DB

WP(C) 4619/2003 Page 2 of 9

the said Parishad had declined to register the petitioner No.1 at Delhi.

2.

At the very outset, it is imperative to state that with the efflux of

time, the questions that have emerged for consideration at one point of

time, if we allow ourselves to say so, have gradually melted into

insignification. We say so as two decisions, namely, Pradeep Kumar &

Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 128 (2006) DLT 753 (DB) and

Rajasthan Pradesh V. S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India &

Ors. JT 2010 (6) SC 306 have come into existence. In view of the

aforesaid, we need not refer to the entire facts that have been adumbrated

in the writ petition and the stand and stance put forth in the counter

affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit. We think it apt to refer to the basic

facts which are necessitous for the purpose of adjudication of the lis in

question.

3.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 passed Ayurved

Bhaskar from Gurukul Ayurveda Maha Vidhyalaya Jawalapur, Haridwar,

U.P. in the year 1975 and got himself registered with the Board of Indian

Medicine, Lucknow, U.P. on 7^th August, 1976. The petitioner No.2

passed in the year 1978 and got himself registered with the aforesaid

Board on 1^st January, 1979. Both the petitioners applied for registration

in Delhi on 25^th May, 2001 but the said benefit was declined as a

consequence of which the present writ petition came to be filed.

4.

Before we advert to the issue relating to the constitutional validity

as prayed for, we think it apposite to delineate whether the petitioners are

entitled to the benefit as claimed by them. Section 17 of the 1970 Act

2010:DHC:3921-DB

WP(C) 4619/2003 Page 3 of 9

reads as follows:

“17.

Rights of persons possessing qualifications

included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules to be

enrolled.- (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in

this Act, any medical qualification included in the Second,

Third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification

for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine.

(2)

Save as provided in section 28, no person othe