@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:16443 of 2000 DATED: 14-02-2008 Between: Dr.Mohammed Gavas (Dr.Mohammed Ghouse) ..... 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 in Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines on the strength of his registration with the State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Bihar, dated 18-11-1992, thereby holding that 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 claims that he prosecuted studies in Indian Systems of Medicines viz., Ayurveda and Unani and passed the examination conducted by the State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Bihar at Patna in the year 1992 and got himself registered and established a clinic at Patna and practiced there for about one year. He shifted to Hyderabad and he informed the State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Bihar at Patna about his change of address. He came to know that the registration of Indian Systems of Medical Practitioners is not being done in Hyderabad. Hence, on the basis of the registration with the said Council he was practicing from 1993. He further contended that he is a qualified registered medical practitioner. He further contended that in respect of a medical practitioner at Punjab the matter went up to Supreme Court and the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana was dismissed upholding the judgment of the High Court that he can continue to practice. The petitioner also stands in the same footing, therefore, he is not liable to be prevented from practicing medicine. The respondents filed a counter mentioning that there is no provision to issue a certificate to practice Ayurvedic and Unani Systems combined. Both systems differs each other. At present only institutionally qualified practitioners are getting registered in the respective Boards of Indian Medicines after 1976. Hence, the petitioner’s claim about his registration at Bihar is false. The respondents further contended that the information given by the Commissioner, Indian Medicines and Homeopathy Department, is correct and the petitioner’s claim is unfair and he is not liable to practice without proper registration in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner does not have any valid qualification/registration, even then he is claiming that he is practicing at Nawab Saheb Kunta, Hyderabad, and claimed that he gained good popularity among the public. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is false and cheating the gullible public with his false certificates and registration which is illegal. From the averments made in the counter, the petitioner did not possess the genuine certificates and they are disputed by the respondents. The petitioner claims that they are genuine certificates but he did not file any rejoinder denying the said allegations. Therefore, whether the qualifications and certificates possessed by the petitioner are genuine or not is a question of fact which has to be adjudicated in a Civil Court and the writ petition cannot be maintained. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ 14th February, 2008 SKM