IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP 14392/2009 Date of Decision: 13.10.2009 Haryana Vaidaya Samiti Haryana ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.B.S.Bedi,Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. The petitioner claims to be a registered body of all those persons who have Ayurvedic Degree/ Vaidya Visharad/ Ayurvedic Rattan passed from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (Prayag). They have claimed their entitlement to medical practice under the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act,1963 (for short the 1963 Act) as applicable to Haryana. In para 3 of the writ petition it has further been claimed that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag is recognised under the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act,1962 and the degrees of Vaidya Visharad and Ayurvedic Rattan are equivalent to the course of B.A.M.S., awarded by the universities in the State of Haryana. The prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing the expression “to 1967” in the 4th column of Entry no.105 concerning the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Vaidya Visharad and Ayurvedic Rattan, in second schedule (Part I) of CWP 14392/2009 2 Indian Medicines Central Council Act,1970,being ultra vires of Section 14 (1) of Indian Medicines Central Council Act,1970 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A further prayer for direction to Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine has also been sought to recognise the aforesaid degree by exercising the powers under the provisions of 1963 Act. It is further prayed that respondent no.2 be issued direction to hold that the aforesaid degree holders possess the knowledge requisite for efficient practice of Ayurvedic System of Medicines entitling them to have their names entered in the register of Vaidyas on payment of requisite fee. There are further prayers made for consequential relief. At the outset, we confronted the counsel for the petitioner with a judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported as Smt.Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 SC 966 which holds that the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act,1962 is violative of Article 19 (1) ( c) of the Constitution. There is detailed history traced in the aforesaid judgment with regard to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan which at one time was declared an institution of national importance. We also confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner with a direct judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi Pradesha Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health, Delhi Administration and others, (1997) 11 SCC 687 wherein it was held that degrees of Ayurvedic Rattan and Vaidya Visharad awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (Prayag) were not genuine and cannot be relied upon for determining the eligibility of a candidate to permit him to practice medicine. Even the earlier view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dr.Ravinder Nath v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1993 (Suppl.) CWP 14392/2009 3 (2) SCC 639 was confronted to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In response to the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel has hardly anything to rebut. Once the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act,1962 ultra vires Article 19(1)(c) then any activity of such an institution cannot have any legal sanctity. Hon'ble the Supreme Court specifically dealt with the issuance of degrees by such institutions in the case of Dr.Ravinder Nath (supra) and Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners' case and held that even if a person is registered in a State on the basis of such degrees they were not entitled to practice under Section 17 of the Indian Medicines Central Council Act,1970. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the members of the petitioner association cannot be permitted to practice by issuance of direction to respondent no.2 to register them as medical practitioners. Such an action apart from being absolutely illegal would endanger the life of citizens in the society generally. Therefore, the writ petition is wholly without merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforesaid this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge 13.10.2009 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge