RAGHAVA MENON Vs. HEALTH INSPECTOR KODUVAYUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question argued in this Criminal Revision Petition is that R.3, 6, 11 and 13 in the Vaccination in rural areas transferred from former Madras State to the Kerala State R.1964 made under S.81 and 129(i) of the Madras Public Health Act 1939 (Act III of 1939) are invalid, inoperative and unconstitutional as violative of Art.25 of the Constitution of India. The facts which led to the filing of this Criminal Revision Petition may be stated first.

(2.) The petitioner is a homeopathic practitioner and a staunch believer in the efficacy of that system of medicine. By a notice dated 8-7-1969 of the first respondent, Health Inspector, Koduvayoor Health Centre, the petitioner was informed that his daughter, one Jayasree aged 5 1/2 shall be produced for inspection and vaccination as a protection against small pox, on 15-7-1969 at the time and place specified in that notice. The notice was issued under R.3(iii) read with R.11(ii)(d) of the above Rules. The petitioner did not produce the child, though he acknowledged the notice. So the petitioner was prosecuted before the Sub Magistrate, Chittur, for an offence under R.13(a) of the Rules, which reads:

(3.) It is relevant at this stage to point out that during the pendency of the prosecution before the Sub Magistrate the petitioner moved that court to refer the matter to the High Court under S.432 of the Criminal Procedure Code for determination as to whether any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Constitution of India involved in the case. The Magistrate rejected that petition. While so, the petitioner filed O. P. 1216/1970 in this court to determine the question as to whether the case involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, as according to him, it is necessary for the disposal of the case pending before the Magistrate to decide whether R.3,6, 11 and 13 of the aforesaid rules are unconstitutional or not. A single Judge of this court dismissed that petition. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 74 of 1970 to this court which came before a Division Bench, The learned Judges of the Division Bench passed the following order dismissing the writ appeal: