u< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J Writ Petition (c) No. 3035 of 2009 Petitioners 1. 2. Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. Dr. N.N. Bariyar S/o Late Narsingh Bariyar, Aged about 52 years, R/o Bhathi Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Dr. Ram Chandra Biswas S/o Late Panchanan Biswas, Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Sarganwa, Post-Sakalo, Tehsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(CG) The Collector, Surguja, Distt. Surguja (CG) The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) The Block Medical Officer, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Present: Mr.A.N. Pandey, learned counselforthe petitioner. Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned GAforthe State. ORAL ORDER (24th November, 2009) Dh/rendra Mishra, J 8y this petition, the petitioners have impugned the act of respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ambikapur, whereby they have ordered sealing of the hospital run by the petitioners on the allegation that the petitioners are engaged in unauthorizedly treating the patients without requisite qualification and without having registration to practise as either Allopathic or Ayurvedjc or Unani doctor. From return filed by the respondents/State, it appears that the petitioners were called upon to produce necessary certificates with respect to their qualification to practise as either Allopathic or Ayurvedic or Unani doctor and registration certificate for pursuing the aforesaid vocation as doctors. On their failure and further on their admission that they were practisjng as doctor. the said hospital was sealed and subsequently, given on Supurdnama to petitioner No.2 after sealing. The aforesaid action has been ufc %.."^.«te£ taken by respondent No.3 in public interest as the petitioners were practising medicine. for which they were not entitled. Referring to Section 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 (in short "the Act, 1987"), it has been stated that if any person, who is not enrolled on the State Medical Register, practises as a registered Medical Practitioner, he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and with fine, which may extend to five thousand rupees. Since conduct ofthe petitioners is in violation of Section 24 of the Act, 1987, their premises have been sealed. On.specific query by the Court, Shri Alok Bakshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the State, could not point out any provision under the Act, 1987 or any other provision, which permits the Sub Divisional Magistrate to seal the premises/hospital of the petitioners. The return filed by the respondents/State nowhere mentions that any prosecution has been launched against the petitioners for violation of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 1987. In these circumstances, l deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to unseal the petitioners' hospital. In the result, the respondent authorities are directed to unseal the petitioners' hospital forthwith. However, it is made clearthat ifthe petitioners are engaged in practising as doctors under the Allopathic or Ayurvedic or Unani Chikitsa Paddhati without requisite qualification and necessary certificate in this regard, the authorities may proceed against them in accordance wjth law. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^