VED PRAKASH TYAGI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Ved Prakash Tyagi, an Ayurvedic Chikitsak, has preferred this writ petition for challenging the legality and propriety of Chapter IV of the Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan Regulations 1998, with a prayer to strike down the same. Besides the said relief, the petitioner has also implored for quashment of notice dated 5th of June 2006 (Annex.10), order dated 11th of July, 2006 (Annex.8) and order dated 13th of July 2006 (Annex.3) with the consequential relief of a direction to the respondents to renew the registration of the petitioner as Ayurvedic Chikitsak with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Bare minimal facts for claiming aforementioned reliefs, as set out in the writ petition, are that the petitioner has to his credit, degree of Ayurvedacharya in BAMS from University of Rajasthan, which he has acquired in the year 1978. After acquiring the requisite qualification, the petitioner applied for registration with the Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, 'the Board') under the provisions of Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act 1953 (for short, 'Act of 1953'). On completion of requisite formalities, registration was accorded to the petitioner on 11th of March 1980. After his registration aforesaid, the petitioner was recruited as Ayurvedic Chikitsak in the year 1984 by the Government of Rajasthan. In the year 1994, the petitioner contested the election of Central Council of Indian Medicine and was elected as its member. The said status he enjoyed until the order impugned came into offing. The petitioner has very specifically pleaded in his writ petition that some of the Ayurvedic Chikitsaks practicing in Rajasthan were not possessing the requisite qualification, therefore, he preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 733 of 2000 and sought direction against the Board to delete names of those individuals, who were having to their credit qualification of Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna from Hindu Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, which was obtained by them after 1967. The writ petition was ultimately allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 6th of January 2005. The cause espoused by the petitioner in the said petition and its subsequent affirmative outcome, had many repercussions and large number of unqualified Ayurvedic Chikitsaks became inimical to the petitioner so as to oust him from the profession. For substantiating this positive assertion, the petitioner has placed on record order dated 13th of July 2006, whereby he was conveyed that his membership from Central Council of Indian Medicine has come to an end for the reason that his name has been removed from the State Register of Indian Medicine. Immediately on receipt of the said communication, the petitioner submitted a representation before the second respondent on 15th of July 2006 ventilating his grievances that how and in what manner without any notice or order his name has been deleted from the State Register of Indian Medicine. In his representation, the petitioner has also desired the copies of the requisite orders in this behalf. The representation of the petitioner was not acknowledged by the second respondent but on inquiries from its office, a Senior Clerk conveyed him that his registration has been canceled for want of renewal. When the said information was divulged by the Senior Clerk, the petitioner submitted yet another representation on 16th of July 2006 and also submitted draft with three photographs under protest for renewal of his registration.

(3.) As per the positive assertion of the petitioner, he continued his pursuit, and in this regard submitted a representation on 18th of July 2006. On 17th of July 2006, he made endeavor by sending a FAX Message that he has not been supplied copy of order or copy of notice. Thereupon, the third respondent informed him by a communication dated 17th of July 2006 that for the purpose of registration he is required to contact the second respondent. Along with the said communication, copy of letter dated 13th of July 2006 was also enclosed. From the recitals contained in communication dated 17th of July 2006, it was revealed that notice issued to him for renewal of registration was published in the newspaper, and a copy of the same was also sent to him at his residential address of Jaipur. In the same breath, by the aforesaid communication, the request of the petitioner, that he is having permanent registration, which requires no renewal, was turned down. The petitioner has also asserted in the petition that in fact no registered letter was sent to him at his Jaipur address before cancellation of his registration.