माननीय उच्च न्यायालय जबलपुर द्वारा हमारे

         संस्थान को वैध करार दिया है। 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA

   PRADESH  AT  JABALPUR 

MISC. PETITION NO.3136 OF 1993.

(1)Indore research institute of alternative medicine through its director Dr .Praveen kumar Sharma  .

(2) New alternative medicines science welfare Parishad through its president Dr Praveen Kumar Sharma.

(3)Dr.Praveen Kumar Sharma son of Shri Dr K.K .Sharma as about 24 of years resident of 58 Anand Nagar Anand apartment nobehind Sapna Sangeeta talkies Indore Madhya Pradesh

                                  versus
(1)state of Madhya Pradesh through the chief secretary government of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal

(2)Secretary Department of home Govt. of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal.

 (3)Secretary public Health and family welfare department government of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal . 

petition under article 226 /227 of the constitution of India for issue of a writ of appropriate nature  on order or direction of like nature.

                                         ORDER

(1) In this bunch of writ petitions petitioners are either individuals or institutions individuals contend that they have their right to practice in the alternative system of medicines whereas the grievance of the institutions are that action of the respondents are not permitting them to impart education in alternative system medicine is illegal. individual petitioners registered either with the Indian Council of alternative system of medicine ,Alternative medical council, Subhash alternative academic Council or Council of electro homeopathic societies which are society register under the societies registration act. individual petitioners claim that they have right to practice in alternative system of medicine namely in the  Indo electro homeopathy electro homeopathy whereas institutions contend that they have the right to impart education on the alternative system medicine and action of the respondents in interfering with right to practice or impart education is in the teeth of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution of India.

2. It is conceded by the individual petitioner that degree/ diploma obtained by them are not recognize under any law. they contend that practice in the alternative system of medicine not regulated by any of the state and hence in the absence of regulation,/ prohibition they cannot be asked to stop practice  has been done by the magistrate under section 133 of the code of criminal procedure.

3. Similarly the stand of the institutions is that imparting education in the alternative system of medicine is not governed by any statute and the same being not covered either under allopathy ,ayurvedic, naturopathy ,Unani system of medicine which are governed and regulated by various statute .they cannot be prohibited from imparting education in the alternative system of medicine.

4. It is common ground that allopathy, homeopathy ayurvedic ,Unani and naturopathy systems of medicine are governed by various statutes enacted by the union and the state. There is a further no dispute that no legislation governing practice or teaching in Alternative system medicine has been enacted either by the union or the state. however it is the stand of the respondents that in the view of section 21 of the MP ayur vigyan Parishad adhiniyam 1987, no person shall practice in any branch of medicine which will be obviously include alternative system of medicine .

5. Section 21 of the Madhya Pradesh ayurvigyan Parishad adhiniyam 1990 (Act No. 11/90 )which is relevant  for the purpose reads as under :-

  "21 probation from practice axcept as provided in this act of Central act No. 102 of 1956 -Save as provided in this act or  the Indian medical Council act 1956 (No. 102 of 1956 )no person shall practice or hold himself out whether directly or indirectly as a practicing medicine with in the state."

6. It is the stand of Shukla ,appearing on behalf of the state that the aforesaid provision  prohibite practice in medicine and the same will not include only allopathic system of medicine .but any kind of medicine ,which claims to treat a patient. however, counsels for the petitioners have taken the stand that section 21 of the associate at aforesaid Act in the field of allopathic system medicine ,but not other system of treatment. further stand of the petitioners is that in Alternative system of medicine no medicine is used.

7. Having appreciated the rival submissions I am of the opinion that the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh ayurvigyan Parishad adhiniyam 1976 does not  operate in the field of allopathic system of medicine and in not alternative system medicine . Expression medicine has been defined under section   2(c)of the  Act which reads as under :- 2.(C)"Medicine means modern scientific medicine in all the branches and includes surgery and obstetrics, but does not include veterinary medicine and surgery."

8. It is relevant here to state that Sri Shukla has taken me to various dictionaries to contend  that wider meaning of the aforesaid expression be given .I am the opinion that when expression  used in a statute defined under the statute itself, reference to the meaning of the said word by reference to various dictionaries is uncalled for .when the legislature has given the meaning of a particular expressions which legislative device is adopted either to expand or curtail  the meaning of a particular word, reference to dictionaries to understand the meaning of the said expression is  hazardous and and not permissible. According Iam of the considered opinion that while construing section 21 of the act which prohibits practice in the medicine shall mean practice in modern scientific medicine which will include surgery, but does not include veterinary medicine and surgery .it may be started that Mr Shukla has tekan a stand that modern scientific medicine does not mean allopathic system of medicine .From the decision of the Supreme court in case of DR A.K. sabhapati -v- state of Kerala and ors.AIR 1992 S.C. 1310.I do not have the slightest  hesitation in the rejecting the submission of shri Shukla in the said case the supreme court has held that the modern scientific medicine refers to the allopathic system of medicine, which would be evident  from paragraph 14 of the said judgement which reads as follows:"The high court in our opinion, has a rightly held that the expression "modern scientific medicine is a section 2(1) of the central act refer to the allopathic system of medicine and that the provisions of the central act has has been made in relation to medical practitioners practicing the said system .This view finds support from the fact that after the enactment of the central act, parliament has enacted that Indian medicines Central Council Act 1970 in relation to the system of medicine system of Indian medicine commonly known as Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani and the homeopathy Central Council Act ,1973 in relation to homeopathic system of medicine where in provision similar to those contained in the central act have been made in relation to the said system of medicine."

9.This the only statutory provisions which has been invoked to prohibited practice in alternative system medicine section 21 of the Act ,which is my opinion Being confined to the allopathic system of medicine. I am the opinion that respondents cannot take recourse to the alternative system of medicine.It is the stand of both sets of petitions petitioners that they are practicing and imparting education in Alternative system of medicine which is not regulated by any of the statute and hence, they cannot be stopped from carrying out the practice in the alternative system and teaching in the said system in view of Article19(1)(g) or the constitution Of India gives Right to all citizens  to Practice any Profession or to carry ona does not prevent the state from making any law relating the professionals or teaching qualification necessary for practicing any professional caring on any occupation trade or business however in the present case No law expecting the provisions of the section 21 of the act has been brought to my notice to show that any law has been enacted either by the union of the state governing teaching of practice in the alternative system of medicine as held earlier section 21 of the Act does not operate in the field of alternative system of medicine and in the grab of the same responding cannot stop the petitions petitioners from practice and teaching in Alternative system medicines so long valid law is not mad regulating this branch opinion that the action of the responded in stopping the prediction from practicing alternative system of medicine for imparting education in the same is illegal in view of the afford all the consequential view of Article 19(6) same does not prevent the state from making any law relating to the professionals technical qualification necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business.However ,in the present case No law expecting the provisions of section 21 of the Act has been brought to my notice to show that any law has been enacted either by the union or the state governing teaching or practice in the alternative system of medicine.As held earlier section 21 of the Act does not operate in the field of alternative system of medicine and in the grab of the same respondents can not be stop the petitioners from practicing and teaching in Alternative system of medicine, so long valid law is not made regulating this branch.Accordingly  I am of the opinion that the action of the respondents in stopping the petitioners from practicing in Alternative system of medicine or Imparting education in the same is illegal.in view of aforesaid all the consequential actions taken by the respondents are also illegal and ultra-vires .

10. By way of abundant caution I may state  that in case  the petitioners or impart education in the branches of allopathy, homeopathy, ayurvedic ,Unani aur naturopathy which are regulated by various enactments, their actions shall be totally illegal and the respondents are  free to take action against them in accordance with law.

11. In the result all the petitions succeed and it is held that petitioners have right to practice and impart education in Alternative system of medicine in case, same is not one of the system regulated by the statute  I.e. Allopathy, Homeopathy, Ayurvedic, Naturopathy and Unani and the action of the respondents in prohibiting them from the aforesaid acts are illegal and are set aside .In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost

                                                                                     JUDGE                                                                                                               19.3.1999