i? Bll](31-llffiEaB&!Blffis@J-ffil^'i'T'ISG*RM:BILASPUR ^WRITKBrlTI^N 3.2245 OF 2004 aeI^BTITIONERS •<» RESPONDENTS 1. Sitairam SanGley, S/o Ravilal Sanday, aged< about 36' years, R/o village Madva, Tahsil Kasdol, Distt. Raipur (CQ).^.^; :,--,•, :', •: ; • 2. Vrijendra Prasad Tiwari, son pfMithila Prasad Tiwari, aged about years, Resident of Bankimohgfa, Tah. Katghora, Distt'Korba(C(3)/ 3. Vishnu Prasad Kamal, son of Dai.ilat Rarh Kamal, aged about 29 yeSirs, Resident of Bankimohgra, Tah. Katghora, Distt. Kbrba (CG). , Versus 1. The State^Qf Ghhattisgarh, tHrough its Secretary, Departmenl: of Health-arid Family Welfare, Mahtralaya, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (CQ); 2. TlTe Stateof Madhya Pradesb, throygh its Secretary, DepSrtmentof l-1ealth and; FaiHiily'' Welfare, MaritralBya, Valfabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP). 1 ; 3. The M.P. Bpard of Ayurvedic iahd Unahi Sysfem of Mediejne! Natt.irGi|3atHy, Bhopal (MP), throughi tl-ie t.1: '&. 4. Registrar, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (MP).l Ghhattisgarh Board pf Ayurvedic [and Unahi System ofy MediGine and NatUrbFiathy, Raipur, through its Registrar, Raipur(C©). 1 (Writpetition yrader Article 226/227 ofth&CQnstitutionoflndia)! Single Bench : Hon'bleShri Satish K.AgnihotriiJ. Present:- Shri Malay Kymar Bhaduri, couhsel fbrfhe petitioners; Stiri Bhiaskar Rayasi, Panel 1-awyer fbrtheState. ORAL0Ri3ER (Passed on this 11I"aE|Siy iWNovember,2008) By this petition; the peti(ie)ri^rs;segfc a relief to register theiir nam&s in JHe State Register iOHR'raii^itionQrs rrraiStail-ied ynder jt^e •i'..i ChhattisgarR /^Utvedi% U^ l~ii ^ AdHiniy£TO,1S70(^as/^ ^;,AW/S^^^^^ also seek a dir^ction^ ^tteglespBBtleri^ ajLftl'lGlrities to issue the rgquisite forms to th;e|aetitionfFS^^ case, iri accordaneewith law. 2) Ttie brieffacts, ih nytsttell, foraGljudieation ofthe case, are that ttT^Fietitioners have obtained tBe degree ofVaiclyaVisharaElawarded by Hiridi Sahitya Sammelan, Allatiabaia prior to 4-1 1-1989. The Adhiniyam,1970<ceGeivgdttieasSentofthePresiclentonthe30tday of January, 1971: Thereafter; the Aaiiiniyanrt, 1970was amended in the year 1989 (C.G. ^Act 21 Of 1989):- The entry in the Sehedule relatirig to qualifiGatioB of Hihaj Sahitya Sammelan was deleted with effect from 4-11-1&89. Oh the basis 6f the said amendment,tlTe names 6f the pgtitioners were not registered in the State Register 6f Practitioners maintained under the Adhiniyam, 1970 jand requisite forms were not issued to them for enrolment. Thus, this petition. 3) Shri Malay Kurnar Blladuri, learned eounsel appearihg on behalf of tRe p^itiQners, woulcl subrnit that the petitioners obtainecl tHeclegree'Qf^aiclyaVislleiradawarilgdbyt-lihdiSahityaSammelan, Allahabad, in aceorGiance with the provisioris Of the Adhiniyam, 1970. The petition^rs obtained •the degree priQr to 4-11 -1989 i.e. befbne; cOming into^ foree iQflthe amendrrient ( the Adhiniyam, 1970 (C.13. Actj 21 of 1989). Th®respondent ayttiorities are not registeriFig the names of ttie ^petjtiQners in th^? Stafe l^&^^^^ maintained under the Adhiniyam,' 1970, on^the ground that the entry in the Schedule relating to qualific§tion of Mindi SahifyaSammelan was deleted. Accbrcfirfg tQthe petitjcfners, they approached thje office of the respondeht |No.3 bri manyidecasions arid rgquested fpr providing the requisifeforms fortheii-eriFolmentintheStateRegisfer ofPractitionersaStheyobtainedthejdiggreepf^idyaVisharayprlsr to 4-11-1989. Leamed counsel MVoLitd filrthier submit that the deletion of qualification has to be given prOspective effect, not retrospeietive effect. : ;-:'.! ' " • . : i :. ::: • : ; . • ' 4) Per^ontra,.;^Shri^BhasRar^jj^yasj;:Jl^rh^panel^l^ appeann^os Behitffic^th^ S^t®g£§|g|sfE!g«tft^^syBmi^on xs' :^i fr;' Wwl .•;f": t ;..l i(!i Gowri •3' ttie petjtiajagrsysubmits tliat the respondent authorities are acting in ac(X)|xlane^|witl'i tHe pFQyisiQhs as presGribed under the Adhiniyam, 1970 anci tlTey have notcommitted any illegality or irregularity by not registering the names of thepetitioners in the State Register of Practitionersmaintained urTdertheAdhiniyam, 1970. 5) Ihave heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 6) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and anothervs. Ravi Shankarand another while considering the recognition ofVaidya Visharad held that if theVaidya Visharad is not recognized under the Recruitmeht Rules, the same cannot be held as a recognized qualification. 7) The degree of Vaidya Visharad awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not one of the recognized qualifications. The petitioners have not producedadequate documents to come to a particular conclusion. Thus, the issue involved in this petition cannot be adjudicated in absence of materials. Despite opportunity provided to the petitioners, no materials have been produced. 8) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of hfl/s Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bahk of India ,observedas under: "34. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a,matter of Gourse. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, aWrit Courtwill indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such juriscliGtion. If the applicant does not disclose full faets or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. ...." 9) In view of the foregoing, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. NQ order asto costs. 1(1998)3SCC146 22008(1)SCJ542 W Kii-l-^ v.w K:i:; B! Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge