DEVI SAHAI SACHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Shrawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri J.K. Tiwari, Standing Counsel appears for respondents. The petitioners claim to be qualified and registered medical practitioners authorised to practice Indian medicine in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that a clinic, run by Shri Devi Sahari Sachan- petitioner no.1, was registered by the Chief Medical Officer under the orders of the Court in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002 Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs. A.P. Verma and others dated 28.1.2004. It appears that the petitioner no.1, has thereafter allowed his two brothers Shri Ram Jeewan Sachan and Shri Anuradha Sachan-petitioner nos. 2 and 4 and Smt. Snehlata Sachan-the wife of his brother Ram Jeewan Sachan arrayed as petitioner no.3 to practice medicine in his clinic. The degrees and certificates authorizing to practice in Indian medicine have been annexed to the writ petition. By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for directions to the respondents to decide their representation dated 28.3.2009, and not to interfere in their practice and running of the clinic. Shri J.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner no.1 has obtained registration from the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar without placing the correct facts before him. Shri Devi Sahai Sachan-petitioner no.1 claims to have qualification of 'Ayurved Shashtri' from 'Nikhil Bharatvarshiya Ayurved Vidyapeetham, Delhi' (1979) and has obtained registration at serial No. 30709 dated 7.7.1980 vide certificate dated 22.7.1980 from the Indian Medicine Board. The petitioner no. 2 claims to have a degree in 'Ayurved Ratna' from 'Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag' in the year 1991 and has obtained registration from 'Rajkiya Ayurvedic Avam Unani Chikitsa Parishad, Bihar' (1984) in the name of Ram Jeevan @ Devi Dayal Sachan from Patna on 31.3.1984. The petitioner no. 3 claims to have a certificate from Indian Institute for Health Training 34-A, Sashi Bhusan De Street, Calcutta from October, 1994 to September 1995 given by Dr. Biral Chand Mullick and petitioner no.4 appears to have a diploma in Dental Alternative Science from Indian Institute of Medical Technology, Calcutta on 27th Day of July, 2004. A perusal of the certificates would show that all the petitioners are not qualified medical practitioners. The degree of Ayurved Shashtri was included in Schedule-II of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 w.e.f. 25.1.1982, and thus the certificate of petitioner no. 1 from All Indian Ayurved Vidyapeeth Delhi also known as Nikhil Bharatvarshiya Vidhpeetham, Delhi of the year 1979, is not a valid medical qualification. The petitioner no.1 could not have obtained registration on the basis of such un- recognised and un-authorised degree, with the Indian Medicine Board, U.P. So far petitioner no.2 is concerned, the degree of Vaidya Visarad and Ayurved Ratna were valid at item No.105 of Schedule II of the Act of 1970, from 1931 to 1967, whereas the degrees annexed to the writ petition is of the year 1991 and that the name of petitioner no. 2 has been wrongly mentioned in the certificate given by the Rajkiya Ayurvedic Avam Unani Chikitsa Parishad, Bihar. The certificate in the name of Ram Jeewan @ Devi Sahai Sachan appears to be totally misleading as it include both the names of petitioner no.1 and 2 without description of father's name. The qualifications of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are not recognised qualification at all by any medical college recognised by Medical Council of India or Indian Medicine Central Council; and thus all the petitioners are not qualified and authorised medical practitioners. In Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra and anr. JT 2009 (3) SC 351, the Supreme Court has once again reiterated that persons, who are not qualified and registered in the State Register, are not entitled to practice in medicine in that State. In D.K. Joshi vs. State of UP , (2000) 5 SCC 80 the Supreme Court declared and had directed the State of UP fixing accountability on the Chief Medical Officers to apprehend and to prosecute the unqualified and unregistered medical practitioners. In pursuance to these directions this Court had, in order to identify the authorised medical practitioners, issued directions in its order dated 28.1.2004 in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs. A.P. Verma, directing all the qualified and authorised medical practitioners to be registered themselves with the Chief Medical Officers. The Supreme Court has interfered in the matter only so far the renewal of the registrations is concerned. In the present case, the Chief Medical Officer had constituted a team and has found that petitioners are not authorised medical practitioners. The writ petition is dismissed with observations that the Chief Medical Officers shall cancel the registration of petitioner no. 1, and that the Chief Medical Officer; District Magistrate, and Senior Superintendent of Police of Kanpur Nagar are made responsible not to allow the petitioners to practice medicine. A copy of the order be given to Chief Standing Counsel for compliance.