MOHMAD AZAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This set of letters patent appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 14th February, 1986 dismissing the writ petitions.

(2.) The facts of the case relevant to the disposal of this appeal and the connected cases are that the appellants were registered as medical practitioners with the Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines Patna, set up under the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the 'Bihar Act'), and had subsequendy been practising as registered medical practitioners at Panipat in the State of Haryana. In order to enable the Bihar Council to keep track of their whereabouts, they intimated their Panipat addresses to it so that the necessary change could be effected in the register of the Council. The change was duly noted by the Bihar Council and a communication to that effect was received by appellant No. 2 vide Annexure P1 dated 9th August, 1980. It appears that the appellants also applied to the Haryana Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines for being registered with the said Board but they were informed by the Registrar through Annexure P-2 that they could not have their names registered in Haryana nor could they practise therein as they had been registered with the Bihar Council and there was no provision in the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963 (hereinafter called the 'Punjab Act') which was applicable to the State of Haryana enabling them to do so. This action of the respondents compelled the appellants to approach this Court praying for a writ directing them not to restrain the petitioners in the State of Haryana as they were duly qualified and registered for practice. In response to the writ petition, separate written statement were filed and the objections taken were that as the appellants did not possess the qualifications prescribed under the Punjab Act or the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short the 'Central Act') they could not be registered under either of those acts and as such could not practise in the State of Haryana. It was further contended that the appellants' enlistment for registration under the Bihar Council did not qualify them to carry on their practice in the State of Haryana. The learned Single Judge after examining the various provisions of law and accepting the stand of the respondents held that the appellants were entitled to practise only in the State of Bihar as they had been registered with the Bihar Council, and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. The limited controversy that now remains in to the correctness or otherwise of this finding as it is the conceded case of the parties that the appellants do not possess the qualifications for being registered either under section 15 of the Punjab Act or under sections 23 to 25 of the Central Council Act. In this connection, our pointed attention have been focussed by Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants on Section 17 of the Central Act to support his view that the registration with the Bihar Council ipso facto enabled the appellants to practise in the State of Haryana. Mr. Balram Gupta, who has also appeared for some of the appellants in the connected matters, has urged that the fundamental right to practise any trade or profession had been conferred on an individual by Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution and the only impediment on that right was imposed by Sub-Article (6) thereof whereby reasonable restrictions could be put on that right in the public interest and accordingly if the appellants were held entitled and qualified to practise in one State no public interest stood jeopardised if they were allowed to practise in Haryana.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Gill, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, has argued in support of the judgment of the learned single Judge. In reply to Mr. Balram Gupta's argument the stand taken is that each State was entitled to lay down and prescribe qualifications which it thought were necessary in order to quality a person to practise as a registered medical practitioner and a person registered with the Bihar Council could not claim that he had a fundamental right to practise in the State of Haryana in spite of the fact that he did not fulfil the qualifications for being registered under the Punjab Act. In this connection he has brought to our notice the qualifications prescribed for registration under the Bihar Act, the Punjab Act and the Central Act to support his plea that the qualifications under the latter two enactments were far more stringent and envisaged a deeper and more elaborate knowledge of the Indian System of medicine.