JAIPAL Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for declaring Section 17(5) of the Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Act, 1998 (for short 'the 1998 Act') as ultra vires Arts. 14, 19(l)(e), 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and Sections 17(3)(b) and 29 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for brevity 'the 1970 Act') and further to issue a mandamus to the respondents not to give ef-fect to Section 17(5) of the 1998 Act. That apart, a prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26th June, 2003, Annexure P-3, passed by the Delhi Bhartiya Chikista Parishad, the re-spondent No. 3 herein, by which the said Parishad had declined to register the peti-tioner No. 1 at Delhi.

(2.) At the very outset, it is imperative to state that with the efflux of time, the ques-tions that have emerged for consideration at one point of time, if we allow ourselves to say so, have gradually melted into insignification. We say so as two decisions, namely, Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. Govt, of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2006 128 DLT 753 and Rajasthan Pradesh v. S. Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2010 AIR(SC) 2221 have come into exist-ence. In view of the aforesaid, we need not refer to the entire facts that have been adumberated in the writ petition and the stand and stance put forth in the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit. We think it apt to refer to the basic facts which are necessitous for the purpose of adjudication of the lis in question.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 passed Ayurved Bhaskar from Gurukul Ayurveda Maha Vidhyalaya Jawalapur, Haridwar, U. P. in the year 1975 and got him-self registered with the Board of Indian Medi-cine, Lucknow, U. P. on 7th August, 1976. The petitioner No. 2 passed in the year 1978 and got himself registered with the aforesaid Board on 1st January, 1979. Both the peti-tioners applied for registration in Delhi on 25th May, 2001 but the said benefit was de-clined as a consequence of which the present writ petition came to be filed.