MOHAMAD AZAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of C.W. Ps. Nos. 3457, 4758, 5861 and 5887 of 1985 as common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions.

(2.) The facts of C.W.P. No. 3760 of 1985 in brief are that the Petitioners are duly registered as medical practitioners with the Bihar State Council of, Ayuryedic and Unani Medicines, Patna, known in Hindi as Ayurvedic Avam Chiktasa Parishad, Bihar. They have been practising as registered medical practitioners at Pahipat. They informed the Registrar, Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Patna that they wanted to change their addresses and to practice at Panipat and the necessary changes in their address were effected in the record with the said Registrar. A copy of the communication dated 9th August, 1980 to this effect received by Petitioner No. 2 is Annexure P. 1.

(3.) The Haryana Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, through its Registrar, Respondent No. 3 informed the Petitioners that they could not have their names registered in Haryana nor could they practise in the State of Haryaria. A letter to this effect received by Petitioner No. 2 is Annexure P. 2. Similar letters were received by the, other Petitioners also. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have appointed a special; Squad to check whether any unregistered medical practitioner is practising in the State of Haryana. The local Drugs Inspector also approached them and warned them against carrying on their practice as medical practitioners in the State of Haryana. The local chemists and druggists have been directed not to issue any medicines to the patients who have been prescribed such medicines by any of the Petitioners, who are not registered as medical practitioners in the State of Haryana. Through the present writ petitions, they contend that they having been duly registered as medical practitioners with the Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Patna, are very much within their right to practise in the State of Haryana. They have prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the letter Annexure P. 2 received from Respondent No. 3 by Petitioner No. 2 and the similar letters received by the other Petitioners. A prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus is also made for a direction to the Respondents not to restrain the Petitioners from practising as registered medical practitioners in the State of Haryana. Two separate written statements have been filed--one on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the other on behalf of Respondent No. 3. It is contended therein that since the Petitioners do not possess the qualifications prescribed unc.er the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963 (for short 'the Punjab Act'), or the Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970 (for short 'the Central Act') they cannot be registered as medical practitioners under the Punjab Act and cannot practise in the State of Haryana. It is further contended that the Petitioners enlistment or registration under the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic end Unani System of Medicine (Enlistment of Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners) Rules, 1976 (for short 'the Bihar Rules'), does not qualify them to carry on their practice as registered medical practitioners in the State of Haryana.