AYUSH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 01. 05. 2019, published in a daily newspaper, to the extent the same has introduced 14 types of new fees including renewal fee pertaining to renewal of the registration of the Ayurvedic and Unani Doctors. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the decision of the Bihar State Ayurvedic and Unani medical council by which it has been stipulated that it would be mandatory for such registered Doctors to renew their registration every five years by making payment of the renewal fees to the tune of Rs.1000.00. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the subsequent paper publication dtd. 5/8/2021 whereby and where-under the renewal fees has been increased to a sum of Rs.1500.00.

(2.) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the various provisions contained in the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1951"), more particularly Sec. 3 of the Act, 1951 which defines the constitution of the council, Sec. 21 of the Act which provides for maintenance of registers of Vaidyas, Hakims, Surgeons and Midwives practicing the Ayurvedic or Unani system of medicine in the State of Bihar, Sec. 22 which prescribes that any person possessing any of the qualifications specified in the Schedule shall, subject to the provisions contained in the said Act, and on payment of the prescribed fees, be entitled to have their names entered in the register subject to such conditions as the Council may impose, sec. 27 which provides for the Registrar to keep the register in question correct and up - to - date as also remove from the register names of such registered practitioners as are dead or write to any registered practitioner with a view to enquire as to whether he has ceased to practice or has changed his residence and accordingly do the needful in that regard and sec. 29, which vests the Council with the power to prohibit the entry in, or order the removal from, the register, the name of any vaidya or hakim or surgeon or midwife, who has been sentenced by a criminal court and who has been found guilty by the Council of professional misconduct.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further referred to sec. 43 of the aforesaid Act, 1951 to show the source of the fund of the Council, however, it is submitted that sec. 43 though shows one of the source of fund to be the sum received as fees on account of registration of vaidyas, hakims, surgeons and midwives, however, there is no provision for receiving renewal fees. Reference has also been made to sec. 24 which is the regulation making power of the council with regard to various matter, however, the same does not contain any matter pertaining to renewal of registration. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also referred to sec. 55(2)(n) of the Act, 1951 to submit that the rules can be framed by the State Government, after previous publication, not inconsistent with the act, with regard to fees chargeable under the Act and their application.