@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:16357 of 2000 DATED: 14-02-2008 Between: Dr.Ali Akbaruddin ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Government of A.P., rep.by its Secretary Medical & Health Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the petitioner has got a right to continue to practice at Hyderabad in Alternative Medicines and in Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines on the strength of his registration with the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, Calcutta, and State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Bihar, dated 10-10-1998, thereby, the imposition of ban on the petitioner’s practice by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that after completing the course he got his name registered as a practitioner in Alternative Medicines from the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, Calcutta. After registering the name he started practice at Hyderabad in 1995. He learnt the subject on Ayurveda and Unani Systems and got his name registered with the State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Bihar, with registration No.40276P2 and he practiced for about a month at Patna and later shifted to Hyderabad. The petitioner further mentioned that under the similar circumstances the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with the case of one Sri Phool Singh, who got himself registered as a medical practitioner with the above Council at Patna and was practiced in Punjab. He too was prevented from practicing at Punjab. The matter went up to the Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.369 of 1994 filed by the State of Haryana which was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Calcutta High Court also delivered a judgment on 07-05-1990 which also entitles him to practice at Hyderabad on the certificate issued by the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, Calcutta. Therefore, he filed the writ petition for the relief as mentioned above. The respondents filed a counter mentioning that the registration of RMPs was stopped in 1976 itself among all the States of India with a Parliamentary Act of IMCC Act 1970. Hence, there is no provision to recognize his qualification either in Unani or in Ayurveda which is sought to be obtained after 1976 and it is false. The petitioner is not entitled to practice medicine in Ayurvedic and Unani Systems as a doctor. He is not having valid certificates and medical registration. The petitioner has no right to practice in the Alternative Medicines in view of his bogus certificates. He did not describe his qualifications except mentioning that he got registered himself as a private medical practitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if anybody wants to practice in Andhra Pradesh on medicine he has to get himself registered with the Board of Indian Medicine then only he will be eligible to practice. The respondents are disputing the educational qualifications and the certificates said to be possessed by the petitioner. Whereas the petitioner is contending that they are genuine certificates. When there is a disputed question of fact regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the certificates, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach a Civil Court to get the remedy. The writ petition cannot be entertained when there is a disputed question of fact. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ 14th February, 2008 SKM