BHUNESHWAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner claims himself to be a qualified Diploma Holder in Electro Homeopathy and he is practicing in the said stream since 1999. It is his case that there is no bar against practicing Electro Homeopathy, therefore, the sealing of his clinic after a notice having been issued in Annexure P/3, dated 19.03.2017 and the subsequent act of actual sealing in terms of Annexure P/4, dated 02.08.2017 is required to be set aside. The property or the clinic be unsealed and a direction be issued not to interfere with the practice of Electro homeopathy by any of the authorities of the State of Chhattisgarh.

(2.) Arguments were made that there are decisions and observations even by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no bar to practice Eletro Homeopathy and they cannot be called as "quacks" to fall within the mischief of the order and decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, dated 10.10.2017 passed in a batch of Public Interest Litigation applications, the leading case being the case of Madhukar Dwivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others {WP(PIL) No. 19 of 2017} .

(3.) It was also urged that there is no provision in the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010 (for short 'the Act') to allow sealing.