CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE v. STATE OF KERALA and others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ``` WP(C).No.21419 OF 2009(V) ``` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA,, JA/NAKPURI, NEW DELHI - 110058,, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.VAIDYA PREM RAJ SHARMA. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.S.MANU ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (G),, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT COMPLEX,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA.` ``` 2THE REGISTRAR TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL,, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-37. ``` - `3 ADDL.R3 VANCHIYOOR MADHOM DHANWANTHARI SANNIDHANAM` ``` (REGN.NO.T 1894/1998), V.P 18/6, KUNDAMON BHAGAM, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR.V.N PARAMESWARAN POTTY, RESIDING AT VANCHIYOOR MADHOM V.P 18/5, KUNDAMON BHAGAM, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573. (ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 03/08/2009 IN IA.9569/2009) ``` - `4 ADDL.R4 DIVAKARAN P.V AGED 50 YEARS` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 2 ``` S/O VELAYUDHAN, PULLANKOTTU HOUSE, PANICHIPARA, POONJAR P.O. ((ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 27/01/2010 IN IA.396/2010) ``` ``` R1 BY ADV. SMT.ANNIE GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM R1 BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 16400/2009, 13589 & 13123 of 2010, 12533, 6554, 6610, 7658, 8755 & 6503 of 2011, 25120 & 23398 of 2009, 20823 & 7406 of 2010 & 28222 of 2013, 21869/2010, 20279 & 20495/2011, 29008/2013 & 169/2017 & 17507/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 3 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.16400 OF 2009` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` VANCHIYOOR MADHOM DHANWANTHARI SANNIDHANAM, (REGN.NO.T.1894/98),V.P.18/6,, KUNDAMON BHAGAM, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR.V.N.PARAMESWARAN POTTY,, RESIDIDING AT VANCHIYOOR MADHOM V.P.18/5,KUNDAMON BHAGOM, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573. ``` ``` BY ADVS. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SMT.ANNIE GEORGE SRI.T.C.DIPIN SRI.M.P.RAJU ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.` ``` 2THE REGISTRAR, COUNCIL OF INDIGENOUS MEDICINE, OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL COUCNIL, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ## **`ADDL. R3 & R4 IMPLEADED:`** W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 4 - `3 KERALA AYURVEDA PARAMPARYA VAIDYA FORUM REGD. NO. Q. 292/2001, POOYAPPALLIL ASLAMI, S.R.P. MARKET.P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA-690 539, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, K. YESODHARAM VAIDYAR.` ``` (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.08.2009 IN I.A.NO. 7555/2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 16400/2009) ``` ``` 4M.S.SUBHASH VAIDYAN AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KALLADI N SOMASEKHARAN VAIDYAR, MANIMANDIRAM P.O., KALLAD, ALWAYE TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` (ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.08.2009 IN I.A.NO. 9663/2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 16400/2009) ``` - `5` **`ADDL.R5 & R6 IMPLEADED:`** ## `GURUKULA VAIDYA SAMAJAM` ``` A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN, LITERARY, SCIENTIFIC AND CHARITABLE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HIMALAYA PHARMACY TELLICHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.CHANDRAMANI. ``` ``` (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.09.2009 IN I.A. NO. 10379 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 16400/2009) ``` - `6 C.P.SASIKUMAR VAIDYAN` ``` S/O PADMANABHAN VAIDYAN, JIJO BHAVAN, KOTTUKAL.P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM -691 519. ``` ``` (ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.09.2009 IN I.A.NO. 10646/2009) ``` - `7` **`ADDL.R7 TO R14 IMPLEADED:`** ``` KERALA PARAMPARIYA NATTUVAIDYA SAMSTHAPANAM 10/543, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD 678 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MANNAR G.RADHAKRISHNAN. ``` ``` (ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.09.2009 IN ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 5 ## `I.A.NO. 11316/2009)` - `8 DR. ABDUL RASHEED.K.` ``` S/O. MAHAMOOD, AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT SRUTHI, C.P.WOOD, 28/85, KANNUR - 3, GENERAL SECRETARY OF MALABAR HOMEO FEDERATION, VADAKARA. ``` ``` (ADDL. R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.09.2009 IN I.A. NO. 1459/2009) ``` - `9 MALABAR AYURVEDA PARMAPARYA VYDIA COORDINATION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT T.V. MADHAVAN VAIDYAR, VELLUVAMBRAM (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.` ``` (ADDL. R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.03.2010 IN I.A. NO. 1146/2010) ``` ``` 10K.C.RAJAN GURUKKAL AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. K.P.CHOZHY , KANDAM PULLI VEEDU, RAMAPURAM ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` (ADDL.R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.04.2010 in I.A. NO. 5034/2010) ``` - `11 HAHNEMANIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION KERALA (REG. NO.1580/87) NIRMALA HOMOEO STORIES, POST OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR. V. RAVUNNI NAIR, 11/86, MANALARKKARU ROAD, VIYYOOR, THRISSUR.` - `12 DR.VIJAYAN KUTTIKATTU RAMAVARMAPURAM, STATE SECRETARY OF HAHNEMANNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KERALA (REG. NO. 180/87, NIRMALA HOMOEO STORES, POST OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR.` ``` (ADDL. R11 & R12 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.12.2010 IN I.A. NO. 17176/2010) ``` - `13 MALABAR AREA HOMEO PRACTITIONERS PROTECTION COUNCIL REG.NO. 238/98, MALAPPURAM, REP. BY ITS CONVENER DR.P.A. JOSEPH, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 52 YEARS, PADINJARAVELI, HAHNEMANN HOMEO HOUSE, ULLANAM.P.O.,` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 6 ``` 676 303, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM . ``` ``` (ADDL.R13 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.08.2011 IN I.A.NO. 12950/2011) ``` ``` 14VAIDYAN. K.N. RAVI AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, NOW RESIDING AT THALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, VENPALA.PO.,THIRUVALLA (GENERAL SECRETARY OF KERALA AYURVEDA PARAMPARYA VAIDYA FEDERATION, H.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` (ADDL.R14 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.02.2012 IN I.A. NO. 4195/2010) ``` ``` R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY SRI.N.REGHURAJ, SC, HIGH POWER COMMITTEE FOR SABARIMALA, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAIN R5 BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND R7 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R8 BY ADV. SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY R9, BY ADV. SMT.SEEMA R10 BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANGEETHA R10 BY ADV. SMT.S.SIMY R11-12 BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN R13 BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 7 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.13589 OF 2010` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` AYURVEDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF INDIA REG. NO. 74/1996, REPRESENTED BY THE, PRESIDENT T.A. SALIM, AYURVEDA BHAVAN,, XVIII/2-A, P.B. NO. 93, ANGAMALY - 683 572,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY SMT.ANN EMIL JOSEPH SMT.ANNIE GEORGE SRI.GEORGE CLEETUS ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.` ``` 2THE REGISTRAR COUNCIL OF INDIGENEOUS MEDICINE, OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -37. ``` ``` 3THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, AYUSH, IRCS BUILDINGS,, 1, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ## `ADDL. R4 TO R8 IMPLEADED:` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 8 - `4 INDIAN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA GRADUATES MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (INYGMA)` ``` REG. NO.BLU-5477-2006-07, KAVIL BHAVAN, PUTHARIYADUKKAM PO., NEELESWARAM, KASARAGODE DIST., PIN-671314, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY DR.SHIMJI P.NAIR, S/O.MR.P.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA MANIMOOLA PO., BANDADUKKA, KASARAGODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. ``` ``` (ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.06.2020 IN I.A. NO. 6495/2010) ``` - `5 M/S.SELF EDUCATED NATUROPATHY PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION` ``` REGD. NO.S.NO.219/10, MNC CENTRE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670 141, REPRESENTED BY S.K.MADHAVAN. ``` ``` (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.07.2010 IN I.A. NO. 8260/2010) ``` - `6 HAHNEMANIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION` - `KERALA (REG. NO.1580/87) NIRMALA HOMOEO STORES, POST OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR.V. RAVUNNI NAIR, 11/86, MANALARKKARU ROAD, VIYYOOR, THRISSUR.` - `7 DR.VIJAYAN KUTTIKATTU RAMAVARMAPURAM, STATE SECRETARY OF HAHNEMANNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, KERALA (REG. NO.180/87), NIRMALA HOMOEO STORES, POST OFFICE, ROAD, THRISSUR.` ``` (ADDL.R6 & R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.12.2010 IN I.A.NO. 17214/2010) ``` - `8 ALL KERALA HOMEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION REGISTERED NO.13/68, ALAPPUZHA, SECRETARY, K.S.SADANANDAN, S/O. LATE SANKARAN, AGED 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT KEECERUKKAN VELI, AVALOOKUNNU PO., ALAPPUZHA.` ``` (ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.01.2012 IN ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 9 ``` I.A.NO. 20574/2011) ``` ``` BY ADV. SHRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI CGC BY ADV. SMT.LAILA I.S. CGC R6 & R7 BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN BY ADV. SRI.JACOB CHACKO BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER BY ADV. SMT.JANCY ALEX BY ADV. SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH R8 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF BY ADV. SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC R4 BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN R3 BY ADV. SMT.LAILA I.S. , CGC R3 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 10 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.13123 OF 2010` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` PRIVATE AYURVEDA MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, DR.VINOD KRISHNAN, PARATHUVAYALIL HOSPITAL,, NO.VII/361A, M.C.ROAD, P.B.NO.9,KEEZHILLAM P.O.,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 541. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.N.AJITH SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.` - `2 THE REGISTRAR TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-37.` - `3 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 11 ``` THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, IRCS BUILDING, 1, RED CROSS, ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. ``` ``` R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMAL CGC R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC R3 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 12 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.12533 OF 2011` ## `PETITIONERS:` - `1 DR.SAJEESH KUMAR B, 'PREM NIVAS', KOTHERY,, MATTANNUR P.O., KANNUR-670 702.` - `2 DR.SADATH D.R. 'UDAYAGIRI' (KOOTTUNGAL HOUSE),, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O.,, KOLLAM-691 581.` - `3 DR.DEVIDASAN M. 'GANAM', RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-16.` - `4 DR.VINEED S. THEKKINIYEDATH MANA,, KALLUVAZHI P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI. JAYASANKAR A.K ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,, NIRMAN BHAVAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD,, NEW DELHI-110 108. ``` - `2 THE STATE OF KERALA` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 13 ``` REP. BY THE SECRETARY,, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ``` - `3 CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIKITSA AVAM, HOMOEOPATHY ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN,, 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI,, NEW DELHI-110058.` - `4 THE TRAVANCORE - COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCILS,, COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING,, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.` - `5 SRI.K.CHANDRAN VAIDYAR P.P.K.MEMMORIAL VAIDYASSALA,, CHAVASSERY P.O., MATTANNUR VIA.,, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702.` ``` ADDL. R6 & R7 IMPLEADED: ``` - `6 K.V. MADAVA WARRIER NIRMALA BHAVAN,KALLERI, P.O. PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.` - `7 K.SASIDHARA KURUP PERUVANIYAM VETTIL, P.O-ULLIERI, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.,` ``` (ADDL RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER, DATED 17.08.2011 IN IA.10824/11.) ``` ## `ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED:` - `8` ``` AKHILA KERALA PARAMPARYA VAIDYA FEDERATION REG.NO. ER 172/83 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE AKHILA KERALA PARAMPARYA VAIDYA FEDERATION, MARKET SOUTH GATE, ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` (ADDL.R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.02.2012 IN I.A. NO. 9356/2011) ``` ## `ADDL.R9 & R10 IMPLEADED:` ``` 9 ``` ``` MR.K.K.KUNHIMOOSA GURUKAL ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 14 ``` AGED 66 YEARS ``` ``` S/O ABOOBAKAR, RESIDING AT KARIPPIDI POYIL HOUSE, P.O.KIZHAKKOTH, KODUVALY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 572. ``` ``` 10P.P.MUHAMMED GURUKAL T.P.HOUSE, P.O.CHELAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 571. ``` ``` (ADDL.R9 & R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.11.2014 IN I.A.NO. 15900/2014) ``` ``` ADDL.R11 IMPLEADED: ``` ``` 11 ``` ``` KERALA PARAMBARYA NAATTU VAIDYA SAMSTHAPANAM P.B.NO.117, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT DR.M.G.RADHAKRISHNAN ``` ``` (ADDL.R11 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.11.2014 IN I.A. NO. 8992/2014) ``` ``` R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIRASG OF INDIA ``` ``` R11 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU R8 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU BY ADV. SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHUAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC BY ADV. SMT.THUSHARA.V R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.C.VATHSALAN R9 & R10 BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN R1 & R3 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R2 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 15 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.6554 OF 2011` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` 1AYURVEDA HOSPITAL - MANAGEMENTS ASSOCIATION (AHMA), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL, SECRETARY, DR.BABY KRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS,, AYSWARYA HOSPITAL, POOKATTUPADY, ALUVA,, PIN - 683 561. ``` ``` 2DR.JITHESH C., AGED 25 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN N.K., SDK HEALTH COMPLEX, CHELAVOOR,, CALICUT, RESIDING AT "SREELAKSHMI", VILLIAPPALLY, AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, CALICUT DISTRICT – 673 001. 3DR.SANAL KUMAR KURUNHIKKATTIL, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHI RAMAN VAIDYAR,, KURUNHIKKATTIL AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, VENGARA,, RESIDING AT KURUNHIKKATTIL, OORAKAM DESAM,, KEEZHMURI AMSOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, OORAKAM VILLAGE,, OK MURI, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 505. BY ADVS. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SMT.ANNIE GEORGE SRI.M.P.RAJU ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 16 ``` DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 655 001. ``` ``` ADDL.R2 & R3 IMPLEADED: ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` MALABAR AYURVEDA PARAMPARYA VAIDYA SANGHAM REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, BABU GURUKAL, S/O.APPUTTY NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT JAYA NIVAS, VELIMUKKU (S) P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ``` ``` (ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 7.02.2012 IN I.A 6252/2011) ``` ``` 3MALABAR MEKHALA PARAMPARYA AYURVEDA VAIDYA SAMITI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT T.V. MADHAVAN VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT THAZHATH VEEDU, PULPATTA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` (ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 7.2.2012 IN I.A 6258/2011) ``` ``` R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 17 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.6610 OF 2011` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` PRIVATE AYURVEDA MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' ASSOCIATION, PARATHUVAYALIL HOSPITAL,, P.B.NO.9, KEEZHILLAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 541,, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.N.AJITH SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT, OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.` - `2 THE REGISTRAR, COUNCIL OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 037.` - `3 THE REGISTRAR, TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD,,` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 18 ``` THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 037. ``` ``` 4CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE 61-65, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI,, NEW DELHI-110 058, REPRESENTED BY ITS, SECRETARY. ``` ``` 5ADDL. R5 IMPLEADAED: ``` ``` K.C. RAJAN GURUKKAL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. K.P. CHOZHY, KANDAMPULLI VEEDU, RAMAPURAM ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.02.2012 IN I.A.NO.15915/2011) ``` ``` BY ADV. SRI.S.KANNAN BY ADV. SMT.K.S.SANGEETHA BY ADV. SMT.S.SIMY BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN R2 &R3 BY SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC & KNMC R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.THOMAS R4 BY SRI.MANU.S, CGC R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 19 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.7658 OF 2011` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` COUNCIL OF AYURVEDA STUDENTS IN KERALA ``` ``` (CASK) REG.NO.T 3070, OFFICE AT GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, STUDENT'S' UNION, GOVT.AYURVEDA COLLEGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,SHRI.GIKKU ALIAS BENNY, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.BENNYMON VARGHESE,CHAMAKANDATHIL HOUSE, PIRAMADOM P.O.MUVATTUPUZHA, MEMURY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 667. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY SRI.M.RETHEESH ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 695 001. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 20 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ``` WP(C).No.8755 OF 2011 ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` VANCHIYOOR MADHOM DHANWANTHARI ``` ``` SANNIDHANAM, (REGN.NO.T1894/98), V.P.18/6,, KUNDAMON BHAGAM, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR.V.N.PARAMESWARAN POTTY,, RESIDING AT VANCHIYOOR MADHOM, V.P.18/5, KUNDAMON BHAGAM, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 573. ``` ``` BY ADVS. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SMT.ANNIE GEORGE SRI.M.P.RAJU ``` ## `RESPONDENT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. ``` ``` R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 21 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.6503 OF 2011` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` AYURVEDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF INDIA REGN.NO.74/1996, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,, DR.T.A.SALIM, AYURVEDA BHAVAN, ANGAMALY,, POST BOX NO.93, ERNAKULAM. PIN – 683 572. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY SMT.ANN EMIL JOSEPH SMT.ANNIE GEORGE SRI.GEORGE CLEETUS ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 22 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.25120 OF 2009` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` 1BHARATEEYA PARAMPARYA NAATTU CHIKITSA SANGHOM (1 558/97) A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER, THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN LITERARY, SCIENTIFIC, CHARITABLE SOCITIES REGISTRATION ACT,1955 HAVING, ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KATTAPPANA, PO PIN 685 508, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. BALAKRISHNAN VAIDYAN. ``` ``` 2BALAKRISHNAN VAIDYAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUPARAMBU THAKIDIYEL, PAMPATTOM PARA P.O, NEDUNGANDOM VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ``` ## `BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 23 ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.23398 OF 2009` ## `PETITIONER/S:` - `1 TRADITIONAL INDIGENOUS MEDICAL PRACTIONERS ASSOCIATION, (ER 924/04), A SOCIETY REGISTRED UNDER THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN LITERARY, SCIENTIFIC CHARITABLE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1955, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SIDDHAKUDEERAM, KURIKKAD P.O., THIRUVANKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.BALAMURALEEKRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.V.N.KESAVAN NAIR, VANDANALIL HOUSE,, AYROOR (NORTH), VELIYARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.` - `2 GRAMEENA VAIDYA PUNARUDDHARANA SANGHOM, E.R NO.594/2003, MANJAKKAATTIL, THIRUVANKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.D.KALESHAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT KUCHI ANJILIKKAL, MANAPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA.` - `3 SUKUMARAN VAIDYAN. P.K., S/O.KUMARAN, PUZHAKKARAYEDATHU, MUTTINAKOM, VARAPPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.` - `4 KOCHUKUTTY, S/O.KELAN, NAMBIARKULANGARA, POOTHOTTA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 307.` ``` BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 UNION OF INDIA,` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 24 ``` REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE), NIRMAN BHAVAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI. ``` ``` 2STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` R1 BY SRI. P. VIJAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R1 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R2 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 25 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.20823 OF 2010` ## `PETITIONER/S:` - `1 THE MALABAR AREA TRADITIONAL AYURVEDIC MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.NO.918 OF, 2005), (P.O.) MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY K.V.M. VARIER.` - `2 SRI.K.V.MADAVA VARIER` ``` NIRMALA BHAVAN, KALLERI, P.O. PERUVAYAL,, KOZHIKODE-24. ``` - `3 SRI.M.R.BHASKARAN VAIDYAR` - `S/O.V.G.RAMAN PILLAI, AGED 71 YEARS,, SOUPARNIKA, HOUSE NO.28/2674, (P.O.) NELLIKKODE,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.` - `4 SRI.K.SASIDARA KURUP PERUVANIYAN VEETTIL, (PO) ULLIERI,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.` - `5 SRI.SREEDARA KURUP PERUVANIYAM VEETTIL, (PO) ULLIERI,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.` - `6 SRI.E.LOHITHAKSHAN VAIDYAR KANAKALAYAM, (P.O.) IRINGOL,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V ``` ``` RESPONDENTS: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 26 - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND, FAMILY WELFARE (G) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 1.` - `2 THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINES INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANKPURI, NEW DELHI,, PIN 110 058, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.` - `3 TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 37, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.` - `4 THE DIRECTOR AYURVEDIC MEDICAL EDUCATION, AROGYA BHAVAN,, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 1.` ``` R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 27 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.7406 OF 2010` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` JOHN STEPHEN VAIDYAR, S/O.GNANAMUTHU VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT J.S.NIVAS, ACHUTHUKULANGARA VATTAVILA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (G) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.` - `2 REGISTRAR TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.` ``` 3REGISTRAR, CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU BHARTIYA CHIVITSA, AVAM, HOMOEOPATHY ANUSANDHAN BHAVAN, 61-65, INSTITUTION AREA, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI 110 058. ``` ``` ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN ASST.S.G OF INDIA ``` ``` R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC ADV. SRI.K.T.THOMAS ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 28 ``` R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI R3 BY SRI.MANU.S, CGC R3 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 29 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.28222 OF 2013` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` JOSHI M. ANTONY, AGED 60 YEARS, MURINGAMPURATH HOUSE, MANAKKAPADI PO, KARIMALLOOR PO, PIN-683 511. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH DEPARTMENT SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.` - `2 THE COUNCIL OF INDIGENOUS MEDICINE, REP. BY THE REGISTRATION OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.` ``` 3THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. ``` - `4 THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.` - `5 THE DRUG CONTROLLER OFFICE OF THE DRUG CONTROLLER, RED CROSS ROAD` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 30 ``` TRIVANDRUM 695 001. ``` ``` 6THE TRAVANCORE KOCHI MEDICAL COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 31 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.21869 OF 2010` ## `PETITIONERS:` - `1 P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,VELIPRAM,RAMANATTUKARA,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.` - `2 BOSE.N., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. N.SRINIVASAN, SRIPADAM(H), KOTTAPPURAM, VELLUR,PULLIKKAL VILLAGE,, ANDHIYUR KUNH, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.` - `3 T.A.CHANDRAMOHANAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. T.U.AMMUNNI, TACHAPUZHA LANE, CHERANALLOOR,, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.` - `4 K.SOMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, AKSHATHA(H), PANTHEERANKAVU.P.O,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT19.` - `5 GIRESH BABU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, VALIYAPARAMBATH (H), PATHIYARAKKARA.P.O,, VADAKARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.` - `6 C.K.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN, THAIKANDY(H), ELATHOOR.P.O,, KORAPPUZHA VIA, CALICUT.` - `7 P. BABURAJAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOOTHORAN.P, CHEMBAI(H), CHOOLOOR.P.O,, KOZHIKODE-673 601.` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 32 - `8 P. SREEDHARAN PAPPANOOR, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE KANNAN, SRIRAGAM(H), CHENAKKAL,, CALICUT UNIVERSITY.P.O, THENHIPALAM VIA,, MALAPPURAM.` - `9 M.K.THALHATH, AGED 40 YEARS, SO.M.K.MOIDU, MALODIYAVUMMAL(H), KUNNAMANGALAM.P.O,, KOZHIKODE-673 571.` - `10 P. SHAFEEQUE, AGED 36 YEARS, S/ O. SAIDALI POOTHANARI(H), POKKUNNU.P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 013.` - `11 P.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. SANKHU VYDEAR, PETTAMANNA SANDIYEKKAL (H),, ARAKKPARAMBA. P.O, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM.` - `12 KOZHAMBRATH PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. CHANDHUKUTTY, THIRUVATHIRA JAWAHAR COLONY,, ERANJIPPALAM.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 006.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.BALAN SRI.B.JAYABAL ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM.` - `2 THE REGISTRAR, TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD, TRIVANDRUM.` - `3 GENERAL SECRETARY, AKHIL BHARATIYA PRAKRITHIK CHIKITSA PARISHAD (ALL INDIA NATURE CURE, FEDERATION), DELHI GANDHI SMARAK NIDHI, PATPARGANJ,, DELHI- 110 O91.` - `R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC` - `R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 33 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.20279 OF 2011` ## `PETITIONER/S:` ``` V.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. K. VIDYADHARAN, ``` ``` AGED 46 YEARS, INDIRA, MRA LANE,, NEAR MANGATTUMOOLA TEMPLE, ATTINGAL P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN-695 001. ``` ``` 2THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (ISM), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. ``` ``` R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 34 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.20495 OF 2011` ## `PETITIONER/S:` - `1 SELF EDUCATED NATUROPATHY PRACTITIONERS' ASSOCIATION,, REG.S.NO.219/10,, MAHATMA NATURE CURE CENTRE,, BAKKALAM,THALIPARAMBA,, PIN 670 564, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT.` - `2 DR.S.K.MADHAVAN, CHIEF PHYSICIAN, MAHATMA NATURE CURE CENTRE,, BAKKALAM,THALIPARAMBA, PIN 670 564.` - `3 DR.JOHN MATHEW, CHAITHANYA NATURE CURE HOME & YOGA CENTRE,THADIYOOR P.O,, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 545.` - `4 DR.ALIN KALPETA, ALIN'S HEALTH CENTRE, NATUROPATHY & YOGA, PRAKRITHI NAGAR,, KALPETA, WYNAD, PIN 673 121.` - `5 DR.KANAGAMMA NARENDRAN, SATHYNANDA NATUROPATHY CENTRE,, MATTALLIL BHAGAVATHY LAN, KP VALLON ROAD,, KADAVANTHARA,KOCHI - 682 020.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 35 ``` SMT.M.C.SANITHA SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETART TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH &, FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.` - `2 THE REGISTRAR, TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 691 001.` - `3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME AFFAIRS,SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 691 001.` - `4 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE` ``` POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 691 001. ``` - `R1 BY ADV. ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL` - `R1, R3 & R4 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 36 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.29008 OF 2013` ## `PETITIONERS:` - `1 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O. N.GOVINDAN NAIR, A8, GOOD EARTH HAVELI, PERIKADU, EROOR WEST PO, ERNAKULAM - 682 306.` - `2 K.R. SUGATHAN, SON OF RAGHAVAN PILLAI, VIDYA VIHAR, VALLIKODE, KOTTAYM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.` ``` 3P.A. KUMARAN PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM PO, KOTTAYAM. ``` - `4 SMT. C.I.MARY, W/O. DR.P.C.THOMAS PLAKAL HOUSE, UNITY STREET, KOLAZHY, THRISSUR.` - `5 E. NARAYANAN` ``` SON OF RAMAN @ UNNI, SUN VIEW, PALAT ROAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. ``` - `6 SMT.P.RATNAKUMARI W/O.E.NARAYANAN, -DO- -DO-` - `7 DANIEL K.A. KALAKUDIYIL HOUSE, PANICKANKUDY, IDUKKI.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 37 ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.` - `2 THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (ISM), OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR, TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.` - `R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC R1 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 38 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.169 OF 2017` ## `PETITIONER/S:` - `1 NATUROPATHS ASSOCIATION KERALA PALATTU ROAD, OTTAPPALAM - 679 101,PALAKKAD, NOW SHIFTED TO MAYANNUR KADAVU,MAYANNUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.E.NARAYANAN.` - `2 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR GOOD EARTH HAVELI, A8,EROOR WEST P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 306.` - `3 K.A.FEROSEGHAN KALLEPADATH HOUSE, KALLEPADAM P.O.,PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 587.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.NAVEEN.T ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 001. ``` - `2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 001.` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 39 - `3 THE REGISTRAR TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.` - `4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE),PALAKKAD - 678 001.` - `5 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUTH POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD - 678 001.` ``` R1 TO R5 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY SRI. N. RAGHURAJ, SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 40 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 ``` ## `WP(C).No.17507 OF 2011` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` 1DR. SHIMJI.P.NAIR, GENERAL SECRETARY, INDIAN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA GRADUATES, MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, MANIMOOLA P.O., BANDADUKKA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KERALA. ``` ``` 2DR.RENI. M.K., AGED 35 YEARS W/O.JOJO C.A, CHERIYAKKARA HOUSE, M.G.KAVU POST, TRICHUR. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.JACOB CHACKO ``` ## `RESPONDENT/S:` - `1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.` - `2 THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.` - `3 THE REGISTRAR, TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL,` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 41 ``` THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 017. ``` - `4 THE GENERAL SECRETARY,` ``` NATUROPATHS ASSOCIATION KERALA (NAK FOR SHORT), NATURE CARE UNIT, PALATT ROAD, P.B.NO.20, OTTAPALAM-679 101. ``` ## `ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED:` - `5 JACOB VADAKKANCHERRY S/O V.C. POULOSE, VADAKKANCHERY (H),, MALLIPPURAM-682 511, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,` ``` (ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.28.07.11, IN IA 12204/11.) ``` ## `ADDL. R6 & R7 IMPLEADED:` - `6 UNIVERSITY DIPLOMA HOLDRES ASSOCIATION OF YOGA & NATUROPATHY,, NIRMID BHAVAN,PALLIKKATHODU,ANICKAD P.O,, KOTTAYAM-686 503,, (REPRESENTED BY ITS ORGANISING SECRETARY, M.S. VISWAMBARAN NAIR)` - `7 NATUROPATHS ASSOCIATION, KERALA REG.NO.CA 302/05,REP.BY VICE PRESIDENT, DR.P.A. JOSEPH,S/O.ANTONY,AGED 52 YEARS,, ULLANAM P.O - 676 303,PARAPPANANGADI,MALAPPURAM,` ``` (ADDL. R6 & R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD., 29.8.11 IN IA 14144/2011 & 14222/2011 RESPECTIVELY) ``` ``` ADDL.R8 TO R48 IMPLEADED: ``` - `8 ADDL.R8- JEEJEE T.K THANNIKOT HOUSE,, PANNIYANKARA P.O,, VADAKKANCHERRY,, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.` - `9 ADDL. R9- A.A.JNANADEVAN ANAKKATHIL HOUSE,, KALLIPADAM P.O,, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 42 - `10 ADDL. R10- RAGHUNATHAN P.M VETTIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O KADAYIRUPPU,, VIA, KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.` - `11 ADDL. R11-K.SANKARANARAYANAN HARISREE, MATTARAKKAL P.O,, PERINTHALMANNA VIA,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.` - `12 ADDL. R12 K.A.FEROSEGHAN MILKY WAY NATURAL HYGIENIC SYSTEM,, KALLEPADAM P.O, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `13 ADDL. P13- P.RATHNAKUMARI SUNVIEW, PALAT ROAD, OTTAPALAM,, PALAKKAD.` - `14 ADDL.R14 - K.SREEKUMAR SREERAGAM, KLATHUPARAMBA,, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O, CALICUT.` - `15 ADDL. R15- KALATHIL AHAMMED KANATHAPURAM, UNNIKULAM P.O,, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.` - `16 ADDL. R16 KRISHNA KUMAR VELATHUR HOUSE, P.O, CHEMANCHERY,, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.` - `17 T.ASALATHA VELATHUR HOUSE, P.O, CHEMANCHERY,, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.` - `18 ADDL.R18 - PREETHA M.MADAYIL PONNADATH HOUSE,P.O, THIRUVANGOOR,, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.` - `19 ADDL. R19- SUJATHA CHERUKANDIYIL HOUSE,, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O,, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.` - `20 ADDL. R20- SREEKUMAR C. CHADIYOTTU HOUSE, KAYALAM P.O, MAVOOR VIA, KOZHIKKODE.` - `21 ADDL. R21 K.C.KUMARAN` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 43 ``` ERAMCHITTA HOUSE,, VELLARIKUNDU P.O,, PARAPPA VIA, KASARGODE ``` - `22 ADDL. R22- K.K.PRABHAKARAN PUTHIYAKANDAM HOUSE,, CHERUVATHUR P.O,, KASARGOD DISTRICT.` - `23 ADDL.R23- SR.MARIYAKUTTY NAZARETH NATURE CURE CENTRE, KILLIYANTHARA P.O.,, KUNNOTH, KANNUR DISTRICT.` - `24 ADDL. R24- SR. LISSY P.J. NAZARETH NATURE CURE CENTRE,, KILLIYANTHARA P.O,, KUNNOTH, KANNUR DISTRICT.` - `25 ADDL.R 25-SR.SALY JOSEPH NAZARETH NATURE CURE CENTRE, KILLIYANTHARA P.O,, KUNNOTH,KANNUR DISTRICT.` - `26 ADDL. R26- SR. BINDU JOHN NAZARETH NATURE CURE CENTRE, KILLIYANTHARA P.O, KUNNOTH, KANNUR DISTRICT.` - `27 ADDL. R27 SR. GRACE JOSE NAZARETH NATURE CURE CENTRE, KILLIYANTHARA P.O,, KUNNOTH,, KANNUR DISTRICT.` - `28 ADDL. R28- SR.MAYA THOMAS NAZARETH NATURE CURE CENTRE, KILLIYANTHARA P.O,, KUNNOTH, KANNUR DISTRICT.` - `29 ADDL. R29- SR. MARY M.J. NAZARETH NATURE CURE CENTRE, KILLIYANTHARA P.O,, KUNNOTH,KANNUR DISTRICT.` - `30 ADDL. R30- SREENIVASAN P. PALLIPRAVAN HOUSE, ARALAM P.O,, ODAAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT.` - `31 ADDL. R31- D.KURUVILA KAIYALETH,, OMALLUR P.O,, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.` - `32 ADDL. R32 C.SHAMSUDHEEN` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 44 ``` CHAPPANGAN HOUSE, PILAKKALPADI,, PARIYAPURAM P.O,, PUTHANANGADI,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ``` - `33 ADDL. R33- U.AYYAPPAN HOUSE NO 8/77, PRASANTH NIVAS, P.O MULLURKARA,, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `34 ADDL. 34- SAKUNTHALA K LAKSHMI NIVAS, THAMARACHIRA,, P.O CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.` - `35 ADDL R 35-ULSAH RAJ C. NATHAN AISWARYA, PUZHAVATHU,, CHANGANACHERRY,, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.` - `36 ADDL. R36 SAYYID SADIK ALI K.K KADALUNDI KODAKKATTAKATH, KOORIYAD,, THRUNGADI VIA, KOORIYAD P.O,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.` - `37 ADDL.R37- SHARLI P.K THANDASSERI HOUSE, NOOLUVALLI,, CHEMBUCHIRA P.O,, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `38 ADDL.R38 P.S. SARITHA THYKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,, ARATTUPUZHA P.O,, PALISERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `39 ADDL R39- SANTHI REGHUNANDANAN, VIYYATH HOUSE, P.O,, OLLUKARA,, KRISHNAPURAM, THRISSUR.` - `40 ADDL.R40- PRASANNA VENUGOPAL KARAMUKKU PISHARAM,, CHIYYARAM P.O,, THRISSUR.` - `41 ADDL. R41- K.R.MOHANAN PATHANJALI YOGA CENTRE,, MAHARAJA DARBAR HALL,, GURUVAYOOR P.O,, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `42 ADDL.R42- MANI K.A EDATHANAL HOUSE, P.O,, INCHAKUNDU, VIA,, CHENGALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `43 ADDL. R43 ANTONY A.J` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 45 ``` ARAKKALTHARA HOUSE, P.O, KOMBATHUKADAVU, THRISSUR. ``` - `44 ADDL.R44-SRI.BAIJU SHANKAR AROGYANIKETHAN,, THE COMMUNE OF NATURAL HYGIENE YOGA AND MEDITATION, PAZHANJI,, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `45 ADDL.R45- P.UBAID` - `S/O KUNJUMON,AYYANTHOLE P.O,, THRISSUR-3.` - `46 ADDL.R46- SONIYA ANTONY PEEDIYAKAL HOUSE,, PERINGALA,, CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT.` - `47 ADDL.R47- JOMY GEORGE KOZHIKKARA HOUSE,, KUTTICHIRA P.O,, CHALAKKUDY VIA,, THRISSUR DISTRICT.` - `48 ADDL.R48- A.GOPI AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE,, KADUMPIDI, ENANELLOOR P.O,, MOOVATTUPUZHA VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.,` - `(ADDL. R8 TO R48 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER, IN IA12094/11 DATED 22.09.11)` ## `ADDL. R49 TO R60 IMPLEADED:` - `49 ADDL.R49- T.A.CHANDRAMOHAN AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.T.U.AMMUNNI, THACHAPUZHA LANE,, CHERANALLOOR, PACHALAM PO, SHANMUGHAPURAM,, ERNAKULAM.` - `50 ADDL.R50- P.SHAFEEQUE, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.SAIDALI, POOTHANARI(H),, POKKUNNU PO, KOZHIKODE – 673 013.` - `51 ADDL.R51- K.SOMAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN, AKSHATHA(H),, PANTHEERANKAVU.PO., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 19.` - `52 ADDL.R52- P.BABURAJAN AGED 39 YEARS S/O. LATE MOOTHORAN P, CHEMBAYIL(H),, CHOOLOOR PO,KOZHIKODE – 673 601.` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 46 - `53 ADDL.R53- M.K.THALHATH AGED 40 YEARS S/O.M.K.MOIDU, MALODIYAVUMMAL(H),, KUNNAMANGALAM PO, KOZHIKODE – 673 571.` - `54 ADDL.R54- GIRESH BABU, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.KUMARAN, VALIYAPARAMBATH(H),, PATHIYARAKKARA PO., VADAKKARA VIA.,, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.` - `55 ADDL.R55- P.K.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, VELIPRAM,, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.` - `56 ADDL.R56- P.SREEDHARAN PAPPANOOR AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, SREERAGAM(H),, JYOTHIGRAMAM, CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO.,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.` - `57 ADDL.R57- C.K. ANIL KUMAR 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN,, THAIKANDY(H), ELATHOOR PO.,, KORAPPUZHA VIA., CALICUT.` - `58 ADDL.R58- KOZHAMBRATH PURUSHOTHAMAN AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.CHANDHUKUTTY,, THIRUVATHIRA, JAVAHAR COLONY, ERENJIPPALAM PO,, KOZHIKODE - 673 006.` - `59 ADDL.R59- BOSE N. AGED 34 YEARS S/O.N.SRINIVASAN, SRIPADAM(H),, KOTTAPPURAM, VELLUR, PULLIKKAL VILLAGE,, ANDHIYURKUNH, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.` - `60 ADDL.R60- P.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.SANKHU VYDEAR, PETTAMANNA SANDIYEKKAL(H),, ARRAKKAPARAMBA, POONTHAVANAM, PATTIKKAD,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.,` - `(ADDL.R49 TO R60 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER, DATED 04.10.2011 IN IA.15702/2011)` ## `ADDL.R61 TO 76 IMPLEADED` - `61 ADDL.R61- JEEVA K.SIDHARTHAN PUNARNAVA, KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.``` - `62 ADDL.R62- SOPHY DEVASSY` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 47 ``` ATTOKARAN HOUSE, TMC VII/713,, GANDHI NAGAR, CHEROOR PO., THRISSUR - 8. ``` - `63 ADDL.R63- SUHARA P.S. EDAKAZHIYOOR, CHAVAKKAD VIA., THRISSUR DIST.` - `64 ADDL.R64- P.C.BEERANKUTTY SWANTHANAM, PALAMTHODUVIL,, MONGAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST.` - `65 ADDL.R65- CHANDRASEKHARAN M.K. POYILIL HOUSE, MAMPETTA, MUKKAM P.O.,, KOZHIKODE DIST.` - `66 ADDL.R66- T.M.BALASUBRAMANIAN "NANDANAM", CHERUVANNUR, P.O. FEROKE, CALICUT.` - `67 ADDL.R67- DINESHAN C.C. CHEMBATTAMMAL HOUSE, PADANILAM P.O.,, KOZHIKODE DIST.` - `68 ADDL.R68- SREEJA V.T. VADAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, ETTITHATTU,, CHITTARIKKAL P.O., KASARAGODE DIST.` - `69 ADDL.R69- MINI.P. PONPARAKKAL HOUSE, CHOOLUR P.O.,, N.I.T. VIA., KOZHIKODE DIST.` - `70 ADDL.R70- VASANTHA KUMARI N. KARAYE PARAMBE HOUSE, NALLUR,, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE DIST.` - `71 ADDL.R71- M.K.GIREESH KUMAR PADMA NIVAS, NEAR CHEERMAKAVE,, PALAKKAT, NILESHWAR P.O., KASARAGODE DIST.` - `72 ADDL.R72- SREELATHA M. "NANDANAM", CHERUVANNUR, P.O.FEROKE,, KOZHIKODE DIST.` - `73 ADDL.R73- SHYAM KUMAR N.K. "ANJANA", WEAVERS' STREET, NILESHWAR,, KASARAGODE DIST.` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 48 - `74 ADDL.R74- K.T.V. MINI VANNARAPURAYIL HOUSE,, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DIST.` - `75 ADDL.R75- SREELATHA K. T.P.HOUSE, KANDOTH P.O.,, PAYYANNUR VIA., KANNUR DIST.` - `76 ADDL.R76- SURESH SUKUMARAN C-1, NARMADHA APARTMENTS, PETTA PO.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,` ``` (ADDL.R61 TO R76 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER, ORDER DATED 25.11.2011 IN IA.18670/2011) ``` ``` 77.ADDL. R77 IMPLEADED: C.A. MUKUNDAN, S/O. LATE BALAKRISHNA MENON, SUJATHA NIVAS, AKAPARAMBU, MEKKAD P.O., ANGAMALI, KERALA HOMEOPATHIC WELFARE ORGNAISATION. ``` ``` (ADDL.R77 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.10.2020 IN I.A. NO. 2814/2013) ``` ``` R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.T.BALAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JOJO R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYABAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN IRIMPANAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T R1 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R1 BY ADV. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH R1 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD SR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SR. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC KNMC R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C). NO. 21419/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 49 ## List IA: [W.P.(C) Nos. 21419 and 16400 of 2009, 13589 & 13123 of 2010 and 12533, 6554, 6610, 7658, 8755 & 6503 of 2011] ## List 1B: [W.P.(C) Nos. 25120 and 23398 of 2009, 20823 and 7406 of 2010 and 28222 of 2013] List II: [W.P.(C) Nos. 21869 of 2010, 20279 & 20495 of 2011, 29008 of 2013 and 169 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 17507 of 2011] ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Shaji. P. Chaly, J.** The writ petitions contained under the list IA mentioned above are filed by Ayurveda Hospital Managements' Association, Private Ayurveda Medical Practitioners' Association, Ayurveda Doctors and the Central Council of Indian Medicine respectively, basically challenging the exemption from registration granted under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 ('the Act, 1953' for short) by the State Government invoking the power conferred under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 to unqualified ayurveda practitioners. Whereas, the writ petitions in list IB are filed by the traditional W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 50 Ayurveda practitioners supporting the orders passed by the State Government granting exemption from registration and seeking directions on the basis of such orders. 2. The batch of writ petitions contained under list II are filed by Naturopathy Practitioners' Association and individual Naturopathy practitioners seeking grant of ‘B’ class registration as per the order dated 17-03-2010, modified order dated 20-01-2011 and the further modified order dated 28-02-2011, and the consequential guidelines, issued by the State Government on the basis of certificates issued by some Universities and on the conditions incorporated thereunder, including authorisation given to the Travancore Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine to issue provisional “B” class registration to the practising Naturopaths, who are not institutionally qualified, except W.P.(C) No. 17507 of 2011, which is filed by a graduate Naturopathy doctor, wherein the aforesaid Government orders are under challenge. 3. Since the writ petitions in the aforesaid two batches are materially connected, on agreement, we have heard them together and propose to pass a common judgment by considering the issues W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 51 separately. 4. In order to consider the issues raised in the first batch of writ petitions, we rely upon the pleadings and documents contained in W.P. (C) No. 21419 of 2009 filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine. The Central Council of Indian Medicine ,hereinafter shortly called Council of Indian Medicine, is a statutory body created by the Parliament through the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter called 'Central Act, 1970'). The Central Act, 1970 was enacted by the Parliament to maintain high and uniform standards of education in the field of Indian Medicine. The system of Indian Medicine commonly known as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha (or Unani Tibb) whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the Central Council may declare by notification from time to time. [The words in brackets shall stand substituted by Act 43 of 2010 to read as Unani, Tibb or Sowa-Rigpa.] Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Central Council alone is vested with powers to regulate the field of Indian Medicine and to prescribe the minimum standards of education in the Indian System of Medicine, namely Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha. 5. The issue raised by the petitioner is that the case presents a W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 52 classic example of callous executive overreach, whereby the persons without requisite qualifications and clinical experiences are being recklessly permitted to practice as doctors of the Indian Medicine, which is not only unconstitutional, but also a serious hazard to public health and safety in the State of Kerala and is prone to encourage such practices elsewhere in the country. The cause of action put forth by the petitioner leading to the writ petition is that the State Government, as per Ext.P12 order dated 04.06.2009, permitted traditional practitioners of Ayurveda and Homeopathy without recognised qualifications practising in Malabar Region as on 02.11.1987 as well as the traditional practitioners of siddha System of Medicine without recognised qualification practising in Travancore-Cochin regions as on the date of the said impugned order, to practice as doctors in their respective systems of medicine, which according to the Central Council, is in blatant violation of the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 as well as the legal position settled by the Apex Court as well as the High Courts in various judgments. 6. The legal contention raised by the Central Council is that Ext.P12 order dated 04.06.2009 is issued under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953, which is contrary to the provisions of the W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 53 Central Act, 1970 and thus, hit by the doctrine of repugnance and hence, the same is void. It is also pointed out that the Medical Education is in the concurrent list of the 7th Schedule of the Indian Constitution and therefore, the order issued by the State Government is in conflict with the Central Act, 1970 and therefore, the provisions of the Central Act will prevail by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 has been held as repugnant and void by the Apex Court in _**Dr.**_ _**A.K. Sabhapathi v. State of Kerala and others**_ [ 1992 supp (3) SCC 147] in the context of allopathic medicine. 7. According to the petitioner, even though the said declaration was made in the context of the Allopathic system of Medicine, the ratio is squarely applicable to the Indian Medicine _mutatis mutandis,_ since the Central Act, 1970 are analogous to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the provisions of which guided the Apex Court in _**Dr. A.K. Sabhapathi**_ (supra) and therefore, identical in scope and nature on a comparison of the relevant provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Central council Act, 1970. It is also the case projected by the Central Council that despite numerous exhortations by the Government of India as well as the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 54 Council from the year 1980 onwards, to remove inconsistencies and to make the provisions of the State Act compatible and in consonance with the Central Act, there has been no progress till date. It is further contended that Ext.P12 order is clearly a case of executive impropriety, as evident from their own previous order dated 10.11.2008 stating that Section 17(3)(c) of the Central Act, 1970 had provisions for protecting persons who had been practising Indian System of Medicine for 5 years up to the date of commencement of the said Act. i.e., on 01.10.1976 and accordingly, permitting persons without recognised qualifications to practice as doctors of Indian Medicine is wholly coloured besides being fraught with grave danger to public health and safety. While so, the State Government has issued an order dated 21.02.2011 granting exemption from registration pertaining to the traditional practitioners of Ayurveda, and practitioners of homoeopathy with unrecognized qualifications in Malabar region, which is produced as Ext.P16 as an additional document in the writ petition. Accordingly, an amendment of the writ petition was also sought by the Central Council seeking to quash Ext.P16 order dated 21.02.2011 issued by the State Government which was allowed. W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 55 8. Apparently, in W.P.(C) No. 16400 of 2009, one among the writ petitions in the batch, paper publication was carried out by the petitioner therein namely Vanchiyoor Madhom Dhanwanthari Sannidhanam, a registered organisation conducted by qualified ayurveda practitioners, as per the order of this Court dated 16.09.2009 for enabling those persons interested in the subject matter to get themselves impleaded in the writ petition, in the Mathrubhumi Daily dated 14.10.2009, consequent to which various persons have got themselves impleaded and filed counter affidavits supporting the orders issued by the State Government exempting the unqualified persons from registration exercising the powers conferred under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953. 9. In fact, the State Government has filed the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 16400 of 2009 which is common to all the writ petitions, since the subject issue basically revolves around the question of law raised by the writ petitioners regarding repugnancy of the 1st proviso to section 38 of Act 1953 vis a vis the provisions of the Central Council Act 1970. 10. The paramount contention advanced by the State Government W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 56 is that the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 empowers the Government to exempt any persons or class of persons from the operation of the first proviso contained under Section 38. Therefore, according to the State Government, by virtue of the powers under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953, the Government was empowered to grant exemption from registration to a Medical practitioner. However, later the Government thought not to implement the decision to exempt as per Government Order No. 293/2009 dated 17.08.2009, since the Government thought it fit to constitute a committee comprising experts in the field of ayurveda and homoeopathy to study the possibilities of giving permission to traditional ayurveda practitioners, Siddha vaidyans and Homoeo Practitioners to practice in accordance with the Central and State Laws. It is also submitted that in the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Dr. A.K. Sabhapathi**_ (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 does not deal with the registration of Medical Practitioners in the States and it proceeds on the basis that the said registration and the maintenance of the State Medical Register are to be governed by the law made by the State and hence, it cannot be said that the Central council Act, 1970 lays down an exhaustive code W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 57 in respect of the subject matter dealt with by the State Act. It is also submitted that the Registrar of the Travancore Cochin Medical Council has informed that at the time of coming into force of the Central Act, 1970 on 01.10.1976, there was no State Register applicable to the entire State of Kerala, including the erstwhile Malabar District. It is also submitted that one of the objects of the Act, 1953 is to encourage the study and spread of modern medicine, homoeopathic medicine and indigenous medicine. It is also stated that the Siddha system of medicine is a well developed branch of indigenous medicine. But, the system has no educational institution in the State, except one for its promotion. Therefore, according to the State Government, there is justification for the exemption given to the Paramparya Siddha Vaidyas in the State. The Paramparya Vaidyans, who have got themselves impleaded in W.P.(C) No. 16400 of 2009, have also filed counter affidavits supporting the stand adopted by the State Government and contents that the State Government is vested with ample powers to grant exemption and there is no repugnancy at all by and between the provisions of the Act, 1970 and the Act, 1953. It was also contended that the traditional Ayurveda practitioners were practising Ayurveda for more than five years prior to 01-10-1976, the date of coming into W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 58 force of the Central Act, 1970. 11. It is also pointed out that the judgment in _**Vanchiyoor**_ ## _**Madhom Dhanwanthari Sannidhanam v. State of Kerala**_ [2003(1) KLT 520] rendered by this Court only upholds the Government's power under the first proviso to Section 38 and invoking the said power only, the Government has issued the order granting exemption to the traditional ayurveda practitioners. Yet another contention advanced in one of the writ petitions is that the challenge against the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 38 is hit by the principles of constructive _res judicata_ , since the self same petitioner had not chosen to raise such a ground in W.P.(C) Nos. 27784 and 21923 of 2002. It is also contended that the whole framework of the Government Order invoking the power under the proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is a benefit extended to vaidyas hailing from Malabar area, where there was no Act in force enabling registration. It is also submitted that the Act, 1953 extends to the whole of Travancore-Cochin and the same was not made applicable to the Malabar area and anyhow, the proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is an interdiction to Section 38, since a clear exception is carved out as per the proviso. Again, it is contended that the Madras Medical W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 59 Registration Act, 1914 ('the Act, 1914' for brevity) provided for registration of practitioners in allopathy or any other system of medicine as permitted under Section 13 of the said Act. Therefore, the Madras Medical Registration Act continues to be the law in force applicable to the Malabar area even now by placing reliance on Article 372 read with Article 13(b) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that it is significant to note that the Act, 1914 only provided for registration of the practitioners of the allopathic branch of medicine and practitioners having degrees then available connected with the allopathic branch of medicines. Therefore, it is the contention that the Act, 1914 is never intended for the registration of the practitioners in the ayurvedic branch of medicine, much less the paramparya vaidyam. Further, it is contended that the traditional ayurveda remains as a class, independent and distinct from the present form of the ayurvedic Education, inculcated through colleges and universities, nevertheless the traditional ayurveda remains inextricably interwoven with the present ayurvedic system of medicine. Apart from the aforesaid contentions, it is submitted that challenges made against the Government Orders, by the qualified doctors and other organisations, have no _locus standi_ to question the policy decision of the State W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 60 Government as reflected in the Government Orders. It is also submitted that there is no repugnance by and between the Act, 1953 and the Central Act, 1970, since both operate in different fields and therefore, the contentions made in the writ petition challenging the Government Order have no legal basis. These are the basic contentions placed for the consideration of this Court, insofar as the challenge against the Government Order exempting traditional ayurveda practitioners from registration is concerned. 12. Writ petitions contained in list II specified above is in respect of the Naturopathy practitioners and the Government Order directing 'B' class registration. Except W.P.(C) No. 17507 of 2011, all other writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to implement various Government Orders specified above authorising the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine to issue professional 'B' class registration to the practising naturopaths and other similarly situated persons, who are not institutionally qualified to practice such system of medicine. 13. In order to narrate the facts, the pleadings put forth in W.P. (C) Nos. 20495 of 2011 and 169 of 2017 are relied upon. The basic W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 61 contention advanced by the unqualified practitioners is that the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy has mandated certain conditions and guidelines for granting 'A' class and 'B' class registration to the qualified and practising naturopaths, which guideline is produced as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No. 20495 2011. The guidelines for 'B' class registration reads that, in recognition of the fact that there are a significant number of self educated naturopathy practitioners, class 'B' registration may be given as a one time measure to self educated full time naturopathy practitioners, who are not institutionally qualified and are not less than 35 years of age, who have a minimum fifteen years of full time clinical experience and who have passed class XII or 10+2 from a State Board, the CBSE or the ICSE. It is pointed out that the State Government has issued the order dated 17.03.2010 bearing G.O.(P) No. 160/2010/H&FWD in order to implement the guidelines issued by the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy. Therefore, according to the Naturopathy practitioners, all the similarly situated petitioners are entitled to get 'B' class registration. However, in spite of the Government Orders, registration is not granted. That apart, it is submitted that the Naturopathy, as an alternative system of medicine, has been gaining the attention of both the State and the W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 62 Central Government and it was accordingly that the Government decided to grant registration as one time measure to both the institutionally qualified naturopaths as well as self educated naturopaths. Therefore, it was accordingly that classification of 'A' and 'B' were made. It is also submitted that as per Entry 26 of List III of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, legal, medical and other professions can be regulated by the State Government in the absence of any regulation by the Central Government. It was, accordingly, that the executive power was invoked by the State Government under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and executive orders were issued as per Exts.P5 to P7. It is also submitted that the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and it was, accordingly, that the Government, after a careful and thorough study, have decided to grant registration to Naturopathy and other such practitioners. Other contentions relying upon the proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 are also raised, which are discussed above in the matter of the writ petitions contained under List I . 14. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit, basically contending that without securing registration, the naturopaths and W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 63 other similarly situated persons cannot practice. However, it is pointed out that it was invoking the powers contained under the firist proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 that the State Government has issued orders to grant class 'B' registration to the unqualified Naturopathy practitioners. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, learned Senior Government Pleaders and the respective counsel appearing for the party respondents in the writ petitions. In fact, we have decided to hear the writ petitions together, in view of the fact that the basic issues raised by the rival parties are on the basis of Section 38 and the first proviso thereto of the Act, 1953 _vis-a-sis_ the provisions of the Central Act, 1971. Section 38 and the first proviso thereto read thus: “38. Persons not registered under this Act, etc., not to practice. - No person other than (i) a registered practitioner or (ii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list of practitioners published under Section 30 or (iii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list mentioned in Section 25 shall practice or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practicing modern medicine, homeopathic medicine or ayurvedic medicine, siddha medicine or unani tibbi and no person who is not a registered practitioner of any such medicine shall practice W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 64 any other medicine unless he is also a registered practitioner of that medicine: Provided that the Government may. by notification in the Gazette, direct that this section shall not apply to any person or class or persons or to any specified area in the State where none of the three classes of practitioners mentioned above carries on medical practice:” 16. Section 38 of the Act, 1953 makes it clear that no person other than a registered practitioner or a practitioner whose name is entered in the list of practitioners published under Section 30 of Act, 1953 or a practitioner whose name is entered in the list mentioned in Section 25 of Act, 1953 shall practice or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practicing modern medicine, homeopathic medicine or ayurvedic medicine, siddha medicine or unani tibbi and no person who is not a registered practitioner of any such medicine shall practice any other medicine, unless he is also a registered practitioner of that medicine. To put it otherwise, without registration, in contemplation of Section 38, no person is entitled to practice the kind of medicines prescribed in Section 38. However, by virtue of the first proviso, the Government is vested with powers to notify in the Gazette that Section 38 shall not apply to any person or class of persons or to any specified W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 65 area in the State, where none of the three classes of practitioners mentioned above carries on medical practice. The petitioners, who are supporting the Government Orders granting exemption, have no case that they have registration in terms of the Act, 1953 or they are included in the list of practitioners as on first April, 1953 by virtue of Section 25 of the Act, 1953. The significant feature of Section 38 and the definitions of 'council' and 'indigenous medicine' makes it clear that Act, 1953 deals with modern medicine, Homeopathic Medicine and Indigeneous Medicine. 'Indigenous Medicine' is defined to mean 'the ayurvedic medicine, the siddha medicine and the unani tibbi medicine. Modern medicine is taken care of by the Council of modern medicine, the Homeopathic Medicine is taken care of by the Council of Homeopathic Medicine and the Indigenous Medicine is taken care of by the Council of Indigeneous Medicine, established under Section 3 of the Act, 1953. 17. The paramount contention advanced by the Central Council of Indigeneous Medicine is that the said Council is constituted by creation of the Parliament through a Central Act, namely Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, which is intended to regulate the field of Indian Medicine and to prescribe minimum standards of W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 66 education in the Indian system of Medicine, namely ayurveda, Unani and Siddha systems of medicine. However, the State Government, by virtue of the orders referred to above, exempted the practitioners of Ayurveda and Homeopathy with unrecognised qualifications from the requirements of the registration under the provisions of the Act, 1953. The significant contention advanced is that the exemption granted by the State Government is in conflict with Section 17 of the Central Act, 1970 and therefore, the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 and accordingly, repugnant and void. Sections 17 and 23 of the Central Act, 1970 read thus: “17 Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules to be enrolled. —(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any medical qualification included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine. (2) Save as provided in section 28, no person other than a practitioner of Indian medicine who possesses a recognized medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine,— (a) shall hold office as Vaid, Siddha, Hakim or [physician or] any W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 67 other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) shall practise Indian medicine in any State; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by a law any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; (d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), on any matter relating to Indian medicine. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall affect,— (a) the right of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine to practise Indian medicine in any State merely on the ground that, on the commencement of this Act, he does not possess a recognized medical qualification; (b) the privileges (including the right to practise any system of medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian medicine for the time being in force in any State on a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine; (c) the right of a person to practise Indian medicine in a State in which, on the commencement of this Act, a State Register of Indian W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 68 Medicine is not maintained if, on such commencement, he has been practising Indian medicine for not less than five years; (d) the rights conferred by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) [including the right to practise medicine as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the said Act], on persons possessing any qualifications included in the Schedules to the said Act. (4) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of subsection (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 23. The Central Register of Indian Medicine.—(1) The Central Council shall cause to bemaintained in the prescribed manner, a register of practitioners in separate parts for each of the system of Indian medicine to be known as the Central Register of Indian Medicine which shall contain the names of all persons who are for the time being enrolled on any State Register of Indian Medicine and who possess any of the recognised medical qualifications. (2) It shall be the duty of the Registrar of the Central Council to keep and maintain the Central Register of Indian Medicine in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of any orders made by the Central Council, and from time to time to revise the register and publish it in W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 69 the Gazette of India and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (3) Such register shall be deemed to be a public document within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), and may be proved by a copy published in the Gazette of India.” 18. On a reading of Section 17(2), it is clear that it expressly bars the practice of Indian Medicine in any State by persons not holding recognised qualification under the Central Act, 1970. To put it otherwise, the Central Act, 1970 does not envisage any exemption from the provisions in the Act regarding the qualification or registration of practitioners in various branches of Indigeneous Medicine, namely Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani etc. However, sub-Section (3)(c) of Section 17 of the Act, 1970 protects persons, who had been practising Indian system of medicine for at least five years as on the date of commencement of the Central Act, 1970, provided there had been no State Register maintained in the State on the commencement of the Central Act, 1970. On going through the Government Orders, it is quite clear and evident that the State Government, by invoking the powers conferred under the proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953, has issued an order dated 04.06.2009, whereby the traditional W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 70 practitioners of Ayurveda and Homeopathy without recognised qualifications practising in Malabar Region as on 02.11.1987 as well as the traditional practitioners of siddha system of Medicine without recognised qualification practising in Travancore-Cochin regions as on the date of the Government Order granted permission to practice in their respective system of medicine, which is found to be contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970. It is important to note that after the commencement of the Central Act, 1970 and due to the enforcement of Section 17 across the country on and with effect from 01.10.1976, the schedule of the State Act is deemed to have been replaced by the schedules of the Central Act, 1970. Which thus means the enrolment and the registration of persons not having qualifications recognised under the Central Act or permitting such persons to practice without formal registration by invoking the first proviso to Section 38 of Act, 1953 can only be said to be not legally sustainable. This is because Article 254 of the Constitution of India deals with a situation where there is inconsistency between a Central and State Act. Clause (1) thereto specifies that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 71 provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause (2) thereto states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State, provided that nothing in the clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. 19. It is true, the subject matter of Medical Education is in the concurrent list of the 7th Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Going by Article 254, it is clear and evident that when there is a Central enactment in force, the State is not expected to come out with any W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 72 notification under Article 162 of the Constitution of India in conflict with the Central Law. On a perusal of the provisions of the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 and Section 17 of the Central Act, 1970, it is clear that the Government Orders specified above purportedly issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India are in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, 1970. 20. Arguments are also advanced relying upon the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, dated 31.08.1956, wherein the 'existing State' is defined under Section 2(g) to mean a State specified in the first Schedule to the Constitution at the commencement of the Reorganisation Act, 1956. Part XI of Reorganisation Act, 1956 deals with the legal and miscellaneous provisions. Section 119 thereto refers to the territorial extent of laws, which specifies that the provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to an existing State shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day. On the basis of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, a proclamation is W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 73 made by the President of India for general information and whereas by virtue of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, a new State of Kerala is formed on the first day of November, 1956. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State Government is empowered by order to make such adaptations and modifications of certain laws whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, for the purpose of facilitating the application of such laws in relation to the State of Kerala. Accordingly, the State of Kerala has made the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956. Clause 2(1)(c) thereto defines the 'existing law' to mean 'any law as defined in clause (h) of Section 2 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, in force in the State of Travancore-Cochin or Malabar District or any part of the said State or District immediately before the appointed day and in respect of which the State Government has power to make adaptations under Section 120 of the said Act'. 'Malabar District' is defined under clause 2(b) of the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956 to mean 'the District known as such by Section 5(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. It is an admitted fact that the present Malabar area was under Madras State and the laws applicable in the Malabar area insofar as the W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 74 registration of the Medical Practitioners was concerned, was the Madras Medical Registration Act, 1914 ('Act, 1914' for short). Section 3(2) of the Act, 1914 defines 'Council' to mean a Council of modern medicine established under Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. In Section 11, it specifies that the names of all medical practitioners registered under the Madras Act, 1914 and holding any appointment or practicing in the District of Malabar or the Kasaragod Taluk immediately before the first day of November, 1956 shall be included in the Register. Section 25 thereto states that the medical practitioners registered under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, be registered under the Act, 1914 and notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, 1914, any person -- (i) registered under part A of the register for Modern Medicine maintained under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and holding any appointment, or practising immediately before the first day of November, 1956 in that portion of the State of TravancoreCochin which formed part of the State of Kerala; or (ii) registered on or after the first day of November, 1956 under Part A of the register for Modern Medicine maintained under the said Act; shall, so long as such registration continues in force, be deemed to be registered under W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 75 the Act. Correspondingly, the Act, 1953 was amended and Section 47A was inserted which specifies that the medical practitioners registered under the Act, 1914, to be deemed registered under the Act, 1953 and notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, 1953, any person – (i) registered under the Act, 1914 and holding any appointment or practising in the District of Malabar or Kasaragod Taluk immediately before the first day of November, 1956; or (ii) registered on or after the first day of November, 1956 under the said Act, as applied to the district of Malabar; shall so long as such registration continues in force, be deemed registered in Part A of the Register for modern medicines maintained under the Act, 1953. Relying upon the said provisions, the sum and substance of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the Central Council for Indian Medicine is that insofar as the present Malabar area within the State of Kerala is concerned, it is guided by the Madras Act, 1914 and that too the registration thereunder is only with the Council for Modern Medicine established under Section 3 of the Act, 1953 and therefore, it is submitted that insofar as the Malabar District is concerned, the same was under the Act, 1914 and the registration of the qualified practitioners was only in respect of the Modern Medicine established W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 76 under Section 3 of the Act, 1953. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no enabling law for the registration of even the qualified ayurveda practitioners either under the Act, 1914 or under the Act, 1953. However, the State Register of Indian Medicine is defined under the Central Council Act, 1970 to mean ‘a register or registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of the practitioners of Indian Medicine’. Therefore, even though the provisions of the Act, 1914 and the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 deals with the registration of the practitioners of modern medicine, by virtue of the powers conferred under the Central Act, 1970, the practitioners of Indian Medicine who have entered the names in the register/registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State has a valid registration to practice the profession of Indian Medicine. ‘State Register of Indian Medicine’ is defined under Section 2(1)(j) of the Central council Act 1970 to mean ‘a register or registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of Indian medicine’. However a conjoint reading of the definitions of 'Indian Medicine' provided under Section 2 (1)(e) and the 'State Register of Indian Medicine' contained under Section 2 (1)(j) W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 77 make it clear that on maintenance of a register or registers, the practitioners of ayurveda, siddha or unani tibb are entitled to practice Indian Medicine on securing registration. Whatever that be, we make it clear that under the Central Act, 1970, the recognised medical qualification is defined in Section 2(i)(h) to mean 'any of the medical qualifications, including postgraduate medical qualification, of the Indian medicine included in the Second, Third and Fourth Schedule. The second Schedule of Central Act, 1970 constituted as per Section 14, deals with recognised medical qualifications in Indian Medicine granted by Universities, Boards or other medical institutions in India and Part I thereto deals with ayurveda and siddha. The third schedule constituted under Section 15 deals with qualifications granted by certain medical institutions before 15th August, 1947 in areas which comprised within India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 and the fourth Schedule constituted under Section 16 of Central Act, 1970 deals with qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity. The writ petitioners, who are supporting the Government Orders granting exemption from registration of the traditional ayurveda practitioners, are not having a case that they are entitled to get any benefits of the W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 78 provisions of the Act, 1970 or the institutions and Universities included in the second and third Schedules. 21. Therefore, taking into account all these provisions of law, we are of the considered opinion that the exemption granted by the State Government to unqualified practitioners invoking the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 cannot be legally sustained. Anyhow, the question with respect to the power of exemption under the first proviso to Section 38 of Act, 1953 was considered by the Apex Court vis a vis the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in respect of the Allopathic system of Medicine in _**Dr A.K.Sabapathy**_ (supra) and held as follows in paragraph 16: “ **16.** We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the Central Act does not lay down the qualifications for registration of a medical practitioner. We may in this context refer to sub-section (1) of Section 15 which postulates the holding of a recognised medical qualification by a person for being registered in the State Medical Register so as to entitle to practise modern scientific medicine in the State and sub-section (1) of Section 21 which provides that the Indian Medical Register that is required to be maintained by the Medical Council of India shall contain the name of persons who are for the time being enrolled in the State W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 79 Medical Register and who possess any of the recognised medical qualifications. These provisions contemplate that a person can practise in allopathic system of medicine in a State or in the country only if he possesses a recognised medical qualification. Permitting a person who does not possess the recognised medical qualification in the allopathic system of medicine would be in direct conflict with the provisions of the Central Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the first proviso to Section 38 of the State Act insofar as it empowers the State Government to permit a person to practise allopathic system of medicine even though he does not possess the recognised medical qualifications for that system of medicine is inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 15 and 21 read with Sections 11 to 14 of the Central Act. The said proviso suffers from the vice of repugnancy insofar as it covers persons who want to practise the allopathic system of medicine and is void to the extent of such repugnancy. Practitioners in allopathic system of medicine must, therefore, be excluded from the scope of the first proviso and it must be confined in its application to systems of medicines other than the allopathic system of medicine. We, however, wish to make it clear that we have not considered the impact of the provisions contained in the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 on the provisions of the said proviso to Section 38 of the State Act. ” 22. However, on an analysis of the judgment of the Apex Court W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 80 in _**Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy**_ (supra), it is evident that in the said judgment, the impact of the provisions contained in the Central Act, 1970 and the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 _vi’s-a-vis_ the provisions of the first proviso to Section 38 of the State Act 1953 was not considered. But the Apex Court had occasion to consider the said issue of repugnancy in the realm of the Central Act, 1970 in _**Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum v. State of Kerala and**_ _**others**_ [(2018) 6 SCC 648]. There the question considered was, whether the persons who do not fulfil the prescribed qualifications and are not duly registered under the relevant statute, be permitted to practice paramparya vaidyam. After considering Section 17 of the Central Act ,1970 and Sections 23 and 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, the arguments of the State was summarised at paragraph 13 as follows: “ **13.** The learned counsel further submitted that the modus operandi of such practitioners in the State is to register an association under the Societies Registration Act or the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, with an object to enrol members and to issue certificates in order to enable them to practise Indian System of Medicine in the guise of “Paramparya Vaidyas”. The learned counsel for the State further contended that in most of these W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 81 cases, there is no tradition or paramparayam for any of the members of such registered association and most of them continue in the field of practice with bogus certificates, degrees and diplomas. The learned counsel finally contended that the bogus practitioners, without having requisite qualification and registration, should not be allowed to play with the lives of the people and to practise the Indian System of Medicine in the State of Kerala.” 23. Anyhow, after considering the proposition of law laid down in _**Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy**_ , it was held that even though the impact of the provisions of the IMCC Act was not considered, the provisions of Section 17 of the IMCC Act also provides for recognition of the medical qualifications included in the second, third and fourth Schedules to be sufficient qualification for enrolment in any State Register of Indian Medicine. Thus, the same principles as has been laid down in _**Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy**_ (supra), as reproduced above, will also apply. Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment in _**Kerala Ayurveda paramparya Vaidya Forum**_ (supra) is relevant to the context and they read thus: **18.** Section 23 of the Act provides for eligibility conditions for registration of medical practitioners. Under sub-section (1), a holder of a recognised qualification or holding appointment under the Government at the commencement of the Act and every other practitioner who has been in regular practice for 5 (five) years preceding 1-4-1953, if applies within one W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 82 year have been made eligible for registration. However, by Section 38 of the Act, persons not registered under the Act have been prohibited from practising various types of medicines. The first proviso empowers the State Government to exempt any person or class of persons from undergoing registration. It is also evident that the Government of Kerala had granted exemption to some traditional practitioners like those who belonged to the renowned Ashtavaidya families. **19.** The capacity to diagnose the disease would depend upon the fact as to whether the practitioner had the necessary professional skill to do so. Acquisition of professional skill is again a regulated subject and the measure thereof is the possession of a prescribed diploma or degree awarded by a recognised institution. What one might enquire with regard to the right to practise medicine in the light of the above is as to whether the appellants are equipped with such a professional qualification. The answer is, obviously, in the negative, as admittedly, the appellants do not possess any prescribed diploma or degree from a recognised institution for that purpose. Even a person who has acquired the prescribed diploma or degree from a recognised institution would not be entitled to practise medicine unless he is so registered under the provisions of the IMCC Act. 20. In _A.K. Sabhapathy_ v. _State of Kerala_ [ _A.K. Sabhapathy_ v. _State of Kerala_ , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 147] , the provisions of Section 38 of the Act and Sections 15 and 21 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 came up for consideration before this Court wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 16061, para 16) [Since para 16 in Dr A. K Sabapathy is extracted above for sake of brevity it is not repeated]” W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 83 And it was held as follows at paragraph 21: **“21.** Even though the impact of the provisions of the IMCC Act was not considered but the provision of Section 17 of the IMCC Act also provides for recognition of medical qualification included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules to be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine. Thus, the same principles as had been laid down in _A.K. Sabhapathy_ [ _A.K. Sabhapathy_ v. _State of Kerala_ , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 147] , as reproduced above, will also apply.” 24. In that context, the findings rendered by the Apex Court in _**Kerala Ayurveda paramparya Vaidya Forum**_ (supra) at paragraphs 25 to 27 are relevant to arrive at a proper conclusion. They read thus: **“25.** In our country, the qualified practitioners are much less than the required number. Earlier, there were very few institutions imparting teaching and training to the doctors, vaidyas and hakims but the situation has changed and there are quite a good number of institutions imparting education in indigenous medicines. Even after 70 years of Independence, the persons having little knowledge or having no recognised or approved qualification are practising medicine and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people. The right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business is no doubt a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. But that right is subject to any W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 84 law relating to the professional or technical qualification necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation or trade or business. The regulatory measures on the exercise of this right both with regard to the standard of professional qualifications and professional conduct have been applied keeping in view not only the right of the medical practitioners but also the right to life and proper health care of persons who need medical care and treatment. ## _**Conclusion**_ **26.** In our country, the numbers of qualified medical practitioners have been much less than the required number of such persons. The scarcity of qualified medical practitioner was previously quite large since there were very few institutions imparting teaching and training to doctors, vaidyas, hakims, etc. The position has now changed and there are quite a good number of medical colleges imparting education in various streams of medicine. No doubt, now there are a good numbers of such institutions training qualified medical practitioners at number of places. The persons having no recognised and approved qualifications, having little knowledge about the indigenous medicines, are becoming medical practitioners and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people. Sometimes such quacks commit blunders and precious lives are lost. **27.** The Government had been vigilant all along to stop such quackery. A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions. W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 85 The Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 as well as the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 were also enacted on the similar lines. Every practitioner shall be deemed to be a practitioner registered under the Act if at the commencement of this Act, his name stands entered in the appropriate register maintained under the said Act and every certificate of registration issued to every such practitioner shall be deemed to be a certificate of registration issued under this Act. But in the present case, the appellants herein have failed to show that they possessed requisite recognised qualification for registration entitling them to practise Indian system of medicines or their names have been entered in the appropriate registers after the commencement of this Act. 25. Therefore, it is clear that the question with respect to the powers of the State Government to grant exemption under the Act, 1953 _vis-a-vis_ the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 was considered by the Apex Court also taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy**_ (supra), and held that unless and until a qualified practitioner secures registration under the provisions of the Act, 1970 they are not entitled to practice the Indian system of Medicine or they are entitled to register their names in the appropriate Registers after the commencement of the Central Act, 1970 otherwise than as provided under the Central Act, 1970. According to us, the clear cut findings entered by the Apex Court in _**Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy**_ W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 86 (supra) and the _**Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum**_ (supra) make it clear that the issues now raised in the writ petitions are settled finally and therefore, the State Government is not empowered to grant any exemption invoking the first proviso to Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and permit practice otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Central Council Act 1970,r/w with the relevant provisions of the Act 1953. Since the Apex Court in _**Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum**_ has followed the proposition of law in _**Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy**_ , we are of the clear opinion that the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is repugnant to the provisions of Section 17 of the Central Act, 1970. We are also of the opinion that the Central Act, 1970 was brought into force in order to maintain the minimum standards for admission, duration of courses of training, details of the curricula and syllabi of studies and the title of degree or diploma varying from State to State and even from Institution to Institution in the same State and the statutory Central Council was constituted after conducting an in depth study by the Government of India relating to the Indian system of medicine and homeopathy. The main functions of the Central Council is to involve uniform standards of education and W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 87 registration of the practitioners of the Indian system of Medicine and Homoeopathy and the Central Council was empowered to form separate committees for ayurveda, siddha, unani and homeopathy and the registration of the practitioners was made compulsory on the Central Register of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy to ensure that the medicine is not practised by those who are not qualified in the Indian systems of Medicine and those who practice, observe the Code of Ethics in the profession. It was specifying the above that the bill was introduced and the Central Act, 1970 was constituted. Even though we find that the Government of India have addressed various communications to the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Kerala to make suitable alterations in the Register, which communications are produced along with W.P.(C) No. 21419 of 2009 filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, no effective steps were taken to make suitable amendments in the Act, 1953 to avoid conflict with the Central Act, 1970. However, the State Government has chosen to issue Government Orders specified above granting exemption from registration, thus, permitting the traditional practitioners of ayurveda to practice ayurveda without the qualifications prescribed under the law and registration in terms of W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 88 law. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the action of the State Government in granting exemption invoking the powers conferred under the first proviso to Section 38 to traditional Ayurveda practitioners has no legal sustenance, and further the 1st proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 being repugnant to section 17( 2) of the Central Act, 1970 is unconstitutional. 26. The legal position with respect to the repugnance _vis-a-vis_ the provisions of the Central Act and the State Act in respect of the entries contained under the concurrent list of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India is well settled. However, a reference to the few of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court would set the legal position very clear. In _**State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Co.**_ [AIR 1964 1284], a Five-Member Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered the levy of fee in respect of the mining operations vis-a-vis the State Laws and it was held thus at paragraph 15: “15. But even if the matter was _res integra_ , the argument cannot be accepted. Repugnancy arises when two enactments both within the competence of the two Legislatures collide and when the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legislature has superiority over the other then to extent of the W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 89 repugnancy the one supersedes the other. But two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience of each of them is possible without disobeying the other. The test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is not, however, the only criterion of repugnancy, for if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne the on the ground of repugnance. Where such is the position, the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a detailed compression of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation. In the present case, having regard to the terms of s. 18(1) it appears clear to us that the intention of Parliament was to cover the entire field and thus to leave no scope for the argument that until rules were framed, there was to inconsistency and no supersession of the State Act. ” ## `27. In` _**`M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors`**_ _`.`_ ``` [(1979) 3 SCC 431], a Five-Member Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered the question with respect to the sanction to prosecute under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act] and held as follows in paragraph 8: ``` “ 8. It would be seen that so far as clause (1) of Article 254 is concerned it clearly lays down that where there is a direct collision W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 90 between a provision of a law made by the State and that made by Parliament with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the pro- visions of clause (2), the State law would be void to the extent of the repugnancy. This naturally means that where both the State and Parliament occupy the field contemplated by the Concurrent List then the Act passed by Parliament being prior in point of time will prevail and consequently the State Act will have to yield to the Central Act. In fact, the scheme of the Constitution is a scientific and equitable distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and the State Legislatures. First, regarding the matters contained in List I, i.e. the Union List to the Seventh Schedule, Parliament alone is empowered to legislate and the State Legislatures have no authority to make any law in respect of the Entries contained in List I. Secondly, so far as the Concurrent List is concerned, both Parliament and the State Legislatures are entitled to legislate in regard to any of the Entries appearing therein, but that is subject to the condition laid down by Article 254(1) discussed above. Thirdly, so far as the matters in List II, i.e. the State List are concerned, the State Legislatures alone are competent to legislate on them and only under certain conditions Parliament can do so. It is, therefore, obvious that in such matters repugnancy may result from the following circumstances: _1_ . Where the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in the Concurrent List are fully inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable, the Central Act will prevail and the State Act will become void in view of the repugnancy. _2_ . Where however a law passed by the State comes into collision with W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 91 a law passed by Parliament on an Entry in the Concurrent List, the State Act shall prevail to the extent of the repugnancy and the provisions of the Central Act would become void provided the State Act has been passed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 254. _3_ . Where a law passed by the State Legislature while being substantially within the scope of the entries in the State List entrenches upon any of the Entries in the Central List the constitutionality of the law may be upheld by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance if on an analysis of the provisions of the Act it appears that by and large the law falls within the four corners of the State List and entrenchment, if any, is purely incidental or inconsequential. _4_ . Where, however, a law made by the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Concurrent List is inconsistent with and repugnant to a previous law made by Parliament, then such a law can be protected by obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The result of obtaining the assent of the President would be that so far as the State Act is concerned, it will prevail in the State and overrule the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to the State only. Such a state of affairs will exist only until Parliament may at any time make a law adding to, or amending, varying or repealing the law made by the State Legislature under the proviso to Article 254. So far as the present State Act is concerned we are called upon to consider the various shades of the constitutional validity of the same under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.” W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 92 ``` 28. In State of Kerala and Ors. v. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd., and Ors [(2012) 7 SCC 106], a Five-Member Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, while considering the question of repugnance of the provisions of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 and the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982, after conducting a survey of the earlier judgments, has held as follows at paragraph 97: ``` _“Conclusions_ 97. To sum up, our conclusions are as follows: 97.1. On timing, we hold that repugnancy arises on the _making_ and not commencement of the law, as correctly held in the judgment of this Court in _Pt. Rishikesh_ v. _Salma Begum_ [(1995) 4 SCC 718] . 97.2. Applying the above test, we hold that on the enactment of the (Central) Chit Funds Act, 1982, on 19-8-1982, which covered the entire field of “chits” under Entry 7 of List III of the Constitution, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, on account of repugnancy as enshrined in Article 254(1), became void and stood impliedly repealed. That, on the occupation of the entire field of “chits”, the Kerala Legislature could not have enacted the State Finance Act 7 of 2002, inserting Section 4(1)( _a_ ) into the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, particularly on the failure of the State in obtaining Presidential assent under Article 254(2). 97.3. That the (Central) Chit Funds Act, 1982 though not brought into force in the State of Kerala is still a law _made_ , which is alive as an existing law. By reason of Article 367 of the Constitution, the General Clauses Act, 1897 _applies to the repeal_ . Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is, therefore, relevant, particularly Sections 6( _b_ ) and 6( _c_ ), and consequently, the _previous_ operation of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 is not affected _nor_ any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under that _repealed_ State Act of 1975. Thus, after 19-8-1982, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 stands repealed except for the limited purposes W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 93 of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. If and when the Central Government brings into force the Chit Funds Act, 1982 by a notification in State of Kerala, under Section 1(3), Section 90(2) will come into play and thereby the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 shall continue to apply _only to chits in operation_ on the date of commencement of the (Central) Chit Funds Act, 1982 in the same manner as the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 applied to chits before such commencement.” ## `29. In` _**`Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal`**_ ## _**`Educational Trusts, Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Ors.`**_ ``` [MANU/SC/0531/2020], the Apex Court has considered the question with respect to the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 and All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and also the question of the special enactment holding the field prior to the introduction of the AICTE Act and it was held at paragraph 15 thus: ``` “15. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and as observed hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act is a Special Act in the field of pharmacy and it is a complete code in itself in the field of pharmacy, the Pharmacy Act shall prevail over the AICTE Act which, as observed hereinabove, is a general statute dealing with technical education/institutions. Therefore, the submission on behalf of AICTE and/or concerned educational institutions that the AICTE Act is a subsequent law and in the definition of "technical education" it includes the "pharmacy" and therefore it can be said to be an "implied repeal", cannot be accepted. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such in the AICTE Act there is no specific repeal of the Pharmacy W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 94 Act, more particularly when, as observed hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act is a Special Act and the subsequent enactment of AICTE Act is general and therefore the Pharmacy Act being a Special Act must prevail. Apart from that, with regard to several aspects, there is no provision made in AICTE Act which are exclusively within the domain of PCI. Thus, it cannot be accepted that there is 'implied repeal' of the Pharmacy Act. ” `30. Now, we will deal with the cases relating to the practice of alternate medicine and the 'B' class registration ordered to be granted by the State Government.The proposition of law laid down as above by the Apex Court under various contexts taking into account Article 254 of the Constitution of India, is a significant indicator to show that when there is a conflict by and between the Central Legislation and the State Legislation made in accordance with the powers conferred in the subjects enumerated in the concurrent list, the Central Act is to prevail to the extent of repugnance, and the provisions of t` he State Act to the extent it conflicts with the Central Act would be unconstitutional/void. The State Government has issued a notification dated 17.03.2020 bearing No. GO(P) No. 116/2010/H&FWD of Health and Family Welfare (D) Department, Thruvananthapuram, which reads thus: # W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 95 # W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 96 W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 97 ``` 31. On a reading of the said Government Order, it is clear that the State Government has decided to issue provisional 'B' Class registration to Naturopaths, who are not institutionally qualified as per the conditions detailed in the said Government Order. Accordingly, the guidelines for the registration of Naturopathy practitioners and accreditation of Naturopath Institution in the State was issued. The preamble of the guidelines specifies that Yoga and Naturopathy, as an integral part of the holistic concept for healing, has got relevance from the very past and now it is widely accepted as a practice all over the world for mental and physical harmony. It is also pointed out there that in our country, there is no unified regulation regarding the practice of Yoga and Naturopathy. It is further stated that the South Indian States like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, and Madhyapradesh have already made suitable legislation for the regulation of Yoga and Naturopathy as a medical practice. It further specifies that the Government of India, vide letter No. R.15016/5-2004-Y&n dated 04.09.2006, directed all the State Governments and Union Territories to enact comprehensive legislation for the regulation of Naturopathy covering the registration of practitioners, the regulation of medical education and all related ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 98 ``` matters and accordingly, it was recommended to formulate an immediate system for the registration of genuine practitioners in Naturopathy and for the accreditation of Naturopathic institutions. Clause (2) of the guidelines deals with 'definitions' and sub-clause a) defines the word 'Council' to mean 'the Travancore-Cochin Council of Indian Systems of Medicine constituted under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act. Clause b) defines 'Naturopathy' to mean a drugless, non-invasive, system of therapy involving the use of natural materials in its treatments based on the theory of vitality, the theory of toxemia, the theory of self healing capacity of the body and the principles of healthy living. 'Naturopathy Institution' is defined under clause c) to mean (I) Education Institutions conducting the Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences (BNYS) course of any University set up by a statute; (ii) Hospitals; and (ii) clinics. 'Hospital' is defined under Clause d) to mean “a Naturopathy Hospital with 10 in-patient beds and an Out-patient department. 'Clinic' is defined under clause (e) to mean 'Naturopathy and Yoga Centres without out patient department only. ``` ``` 32. Clause 3 deals with registration and accreditation. Clauses 3 to 7 are relevant to the context and they read thus: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 99 ## 3. Registration and Accreditation i) Accreditation is the recognition granted to educational institutions, Hospitals and Clinics to signify the attainment of an acceptable level of professional expertise, academic quality and integrity. ii) ‘Registration’ means the registration of Naturopathic and Yoga Practitioners by the Council of Indian Systems of Medicine in Class ‘A’ or ‘B”. iii) The Council will grant accreditation to educational institutions on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy, New Delhi and also have the authority to conduct inspections and evaluation visits for the purpose. iv) Accreditation of Hospitals and Clinics will be for a period of 5 years and will have to be renewed after every five years. ## 4. Conditions for registration 1) Registration of Naturopathy and Yoga Practitioners will be provisional and will be valid till the constitution of a separate council for Naturopathy and Yoga or suitable amendments to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, enabling the Council to issue registration to the Naturopathy and Yoga practitioners. 2) Separate Registers for 'A' class and 'B' class Naturopathy and Yoga practitioners will be maintained by the Registrar, Travancore-Cochin Medical Councils under the Council of Indian Systems of Medicine. 3) Application, fee for registration etc. for 'A' class registration will be the same as applicable for the registration of a practitioner in the Council. 4) Class 'A' registration will be given to institutionally qualified W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 100 professional practitioners possessing 4/4 1/2 years Diploma in Naturopathy (N.D) prior to 1990 from Gandhi Naturopathy Medical College, Hyderabad Board of Indian Medicine, Government of Andhra Pradesh/Osmania University, Hyderabad and 5/5 1/2 years BNYS degree (Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yoga Sciences) awarded by the colleges/universities mentioned in the appendix to the G.O.(P) 361/2009/H&FWD dated 19.10.2009. 5)”B” Class registration may be granted to self educated Naturopathy practitioners with the following conditions:- (a) The Registration process must be limited to one chance only. (b) should have passed SSLC or equivalent. (c) Should have completed 35 years of age. (d) Should have at least fifteen years of full time practice in Naturopathy and Yoga. Experience certificates issued by the District Medical Officers (ISM) should be produced along with the application. 5. Procedure for applying for B Class registration by Self Educated Practitioners Self Educated Yoga and Naturopathy practitioners may apply for 'B” Class registration in the prescribed application form along with examination fees as fixed by the Council and with documentary evidence to prove age, qualification and experience. ## 6. Selection Committee The Council may constitute a Selection Committee for conducting inspection for the purpose of selecting self educated practitioners for 'B' class registration in Yoga and Naturopathy consisting of,- W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 101 (i) The President of the Council (ii) The Registrar, Travancore-Cochin Medical Councils, (iii) Director of Indian Systems of Medicine, (iv) Two senior eminent institutionally qualified Naturopathy practitioners nominated by the Council. ## 7. Section Procedure i) All applications received from self educated Yoga and Naturopathy Practitioners shall be verified by means of field enquiry by the Selection Committee Members or by an officer or authority authorized by the Selection Committee. On receipt of enquiry report, the Selection Committee shall conduct a written test to those applicants who are found to be genuine Yoga and naturopathy practitioners. ii) Selection is on the basis of the performance in a written test adn oral interview conducted by the selection committee. Those scoring 50% of marks in the written test will be called for the interview by the committee. Iii) The Selection Committee shall prepare the list of eligible candidates for registration as 'B' class Yoga and Naturopathy practitioners. iv) Those who are included in the list alone are eligible for registration and may apply before the Council for 'B' class registration in Yoga and Naturopathy. v)'B' Class registered practitioners are entitled to private practice only. “ 33. Later, the State Government has issued an order dated 20.01.2011 bearing No. GO(P) 26/2011/H&FWD of Health and Family Welfare (D) W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 102 Department incorporating an additional condition to condition No.4 contained under the Government Order dated 23.12.2010 specified and extracted above in order to provide provisional 'B' class registration, which reads thus: “Those who have passed 3 year Diploma in Yoga and Naturopathy course from Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam or 3 year Diploma in Nature Cure & Yoga Science from Akhila Bharathiya Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad, New Delhi and Ganhdi Smarak Nidhi, Nidhi, New Delhi, will also be approved for giving Provisional 'B” Class registration. They are also exempted from the requirements of (i) passing any other examination and (ii) 10 years fulltime practice in Naturopathy and Yoga.” ``` It is specified thereunder that G.O.(P) No.116/10/H&FWD dated ``` ``` 34. Yet another notification dated 28.02.2011 was issued by the State Government bearing G.O.(P) NO. 146/2011/H&FWD of Health and Family Welfare (D) Department making further modification to the Government Orders specified above, the relevant portion of which reads thus: ``` “Those who have passed 1 year Diploma course in Naturopathy and Yoga Therapy (DNYT) course conducted by Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam after passing the 3 year Diploma in Naturopathy & Yogic Sciences (ND/DNYS) from Akhila Bharathiya Prakriti Chikitsa W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 103 Parishad, New Delhi and Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, New Delhi are approved for giving Provisional 'B' Class registration. They are also exempted from the requirements of (i) passing other examinations and (ii) 10 years full time practice in Naturopathy and Yoga.” ``` 35. Therefore, according to the practitioners of alternative medicine as is specified above, by virtue of the Government Orders, they are entitled to get 'B' Class registration also in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time. However, the case projected by the qualified practitioners, who are petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 17507 of 2011, is that when they addressed the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy, New Delhi in respect of the orders issued by the State Government for 'B' class registration of such unqualified practitioners and certificate holders from Akhila Bharathiya Prakriti Chikitsa Parishad, New Delhi and Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi, New Delhi, it was clarified as per Ext.P5 communication dated 21.06.2011 bearing No. CCRYN/Dir/Misc/2011 that in their website it was clearly notified that all such Diplomas issued by the NGOs are unauthorised, baseless and have no value, whatsoever, in the eyes of law. It is further pointed out that the Akhila Bharthiya Prakruthi Chikitsa Parishad is an NGO registered and situated in room at 15, Rajghat Colony, New Delhi – 110 002, which is ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 104 ``` the original and that there is one more bogus/parallel Akhila Bharathiya Prakruti Chikitsa Parishad at Delhi Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Patparganj, New Delhi – 110 091, who are involved in such diploma certificates racket. It is further specified thereunder that the Government of India, Department of AYUSH has issued guidelines vide No. R.15016/5/2004-Y&N dated 4[th] September, 2006 regarding grant of Class B registration to genuine practicing Naturopaths only after proper screening and evaluation by conducting a written examination of 100 marks as also practical and viva for 100 marks. It is also specified that for such screening and evaluation, no certificates or diplomas are considered and earlier in all systems of medicines, whether it is allopathy, ayurveda, homeopathy etc. the genuine practitioners were granted class B registration only after proper screening, evaluation etc., without considering any diplomas issued by the NGOs. ``` 36. Similarly, National Institute of Naturopathy, on the basis of the communication sent by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, has issued a reply dated 15.03.2011 bearing ref. No. NIN/Gen/2010-11/5364 stating that the Government of India and any organization under it have so far recognised/considered for any purpose including Medical registration or W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 105 appointments only N.D (Hyderabad) and BNYS degree, as required qualification in Naturopathy, and that any other courses offering certificates or diploma are unrecognised and unauthentic. It is also stated that no monitoring is so far evolved or implemented in conducting any such programmes, by the Government and hence, they are invalid. It is further mentioned thereunder that the Naturopathy in practice with the approved treatment modalities is a clinical medicine, which necessitate a study programme with approved syllabus, regular curriculum and attached teaching hospital. However, a contention is raised by the unqualified practitioners that such communications issued or any other communications issued by the officials of the Government of India can be considered as orders issued under Article 77 of the Constitution of India, since clause (1) of Article 77 clearly specifies that all executive action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President. It is also submitted that all communications issued by the Central Act, 1970 cannot be treated as any orders issued by the Government of India, since they are not issued in the name of the President of India. True, such communications are issued by the respective authorities in their official status and not in the name of the President of India as is contemplated under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. However it is clear from the order extracted above, that it was on the basis of the order of the W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 106 Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 04-092006, that the order dated 17-03-2010 was issued by the State Government. But it is significant to note that in the order dated 04-09-2006 it was clearly specified that the issue has been carefully considered and it is felt that the most appropriate course of action would be for the State Governments to enact comprehensive legislation for the regulation of naturopathy, such legislation should ideally cover the registration of practioners, the regulation of medical education and all related matters. It is also specified that since the enactment of legislation would take some time, it is recommended that a system for the registation of the Naturopathy practioners and for the accreditation of the naturopathy institutions be put in place immediately on the basis of the guidelines which have been formulated by the Department. Accordingly, it was requested that the State Government take immediate action to enact suitable legislation for the regulation of Naturopathy and in the mean time, it is recommended that a system be set up for the registation of practioners and for the accreditation of insitutions on the basis of the guidelines enclosed along with the communication dated 04.09.2006. 37. As per the Guidelines enclosed, clasue 1(b) defines 'Naturopathy' institutions to mean (i) Medical Colleges conducting the Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences (BNYS) course and postgraduate courses W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 107 (ii) Hospitals. 'Hospitals' is defined under clause 1(d) to mean a Naturopathy Hospital with minimum of 10 in-patients beds and out-patient department. The registration and accreditation is dealt in clause 2 of the guidelines which reads thus: “2. Registration and Accreditation a) Accreditation is the recognition granted to educational institutions and hospitals to signify the attainment of an acceptable level of professional expertise, academic quality and integrity. b) Registration means the registration of Naturopathic practitioners under para 4 of the Guidelines. c) There will be a competent authority for the grant of Registration and Accreditation in each State and Union Territory to be nominated by the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy (CCRYN). d) The competent authority will grant Registration and Accreditation on the basis of these guidelines and will have the authority to conduct inspections and evaluation visits for the purpose. e) Accreditation will be for a fixed period of 5 years and will have to be renewed after the expiry of this period. f) The registration will be valid throughout the country. g) The competent authority will notify the date on which the registration and accreditation scheme will come into force.” ``` 38. Registration of Naturopathy Practioners is governed by the clauses 4 to 8 of the Guidelines and they reads thus: ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 108 **==> picture [432 x 491] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 109 **==> picture [432 x 608] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 110 **==> picture [432 x 607] intentionally omitted <==** W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 111 39. Therefore, on a reading of the Guidelines forwarded by the Government of India, it is clear that registration of practitioners was recommended in accordance with the Guidelines specified above. However, the State Government has not followed the Guidelines and has framed its own Guidelines stating that it has got the power to frame guidelines of its own, since as per the order of the Government of India dated 04.09.2006, it has only recommended to follow the guidelines. As pointed out above, it was also submitted that the order of the Government of India dated 04.09.2006 is not an order issued exercising the powers conferred under Article 77 of the Constitution of India, since the said order is not seen to be issued in the name of the President of India. But, in our considered opinion, in the State Government order dated 17.03.2010 ordering registration of the naturopaths is on the basis of the the order of the Government of India dated 04.09.2016 and therefore, the State Government or any of the practitioners are not at liberty to contend that they are not bound to follow the orders and the Guidelines issued by the Government of India. Looking from that angle, it is quite clear and evident that the order and the Guidelines issued by the State Government as is specified above is in violation of the directives contained under the order and the Guidelines issued by the Government of India. That apart, Article 256 makes it obligatory that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 112 with the laws made by Parliament and the executive power of the union shall extent to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. Further, Article 257(1) stipulates that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the union, and the executive power of the union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. We are also of the opinion that the prohibition contained under Section 38 of the Act, 1953 extends to not only to a person who is not a registered practitioner of modern medicine, homeopathic medicine or ayurvedic medicine, siddha medicine or unani tibbi, but also they are prohibited to practice any other medicine unless is also a registered practitioner of that medicine. Therefore, there is no enabling power under the provisions of the Act, 1953 to the State Government to issue an order directing the Registrar of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine to register the name of the unqualified practitioners in the 'A' and 'B' registers directed to be maintained. ``` 40. On analyzing the contentions put forth by the counsel on either side, we are of the considered opinion that irrespective of the communication issued by the statutory authorities under the Central Act, 1970 and the Department of Ayush, the State Government has issued the orders specified above to grant class 'B' registration to ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 113 ``` practicing Naturopaths and other system of alternative medicine by making suitable amendments to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act,1953 enabling the Council to issue registration to the Naturopathy and Yoga practitioners. It is also clear from the order dated 17.03.2010 of the State Government that separate registers for 'A' class and 'B' class Naturopathy practitioners is directed to be maintained by the Registrar, Travancore-Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine. It is surprising to note that the qualification prescribed under the aforesaid State Government Order for 'B' class registration is that the applicant should have passed SSLC or equivalent, completed 35 years of age and have at least 10 years of full time practice in Naturopathy and Yoga. ``` ``` 41. On a reading of the Government Order, it is clear that the order and guidelines issued by the State Government fixing qualifications contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 are also in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, 1970. As we have discussed earlier, the qualifications are clearly prescribed under the Central Act, 1970 and therefore, any order issued by the State Government contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 cannot be recognised under law. The said Government Orders ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 114 ``` purportedly issued invoking the powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India cannot be sustained being repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act, and the order dated 04 - 09-2006 , which cannot be done, by virtue of the provisions contained under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, as is discussed above. The legal issue with respect to the repugnance is elaborately dealt with while considering the issues governing the unqualified ayurveda practitioners and therefore, it does not require further elucidation. ``` ``` 42. Taking into account all the above legal aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the orders issued by the State Government with respect to exemption from registration by invoking the powers conferred under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 as is discussed above and therefore, the same is unconstitutional. So also, the Government Orders issued providing registration to the unqualified practitioners of Naturopathy and other alternative medicines are in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 and the order of the Government of India and the guidelines specified above, and therefore, unconstitutional and the same are also liable to be quashed. Accordingly, 1) the State Government Orders issued ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 115 ``` exempting registration for unqualified ayurveda practitioners are quashed; 2) the State Government Orders discussed above issued for registration of unqualified practitioners of Naturopaths and other alternative medicines also will stand quashed; and 3) the first proviso to section 38 of the Travancore- Cochin Medical Practitioners Act 1953 is declared Unconstitutional and therefore struck down. ``` ``` 43. Accordingly, W.P.(C) Nos. 21419 and 16400 of 2009, 13589 & 13123 of 2010 and 12533, 6554, 6610, 7658, 8755 of 6503 of 2011 contained in list I-A would stand allowed. ``` ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 25120 and 23398 of 2009, 20823 and 7406 of 2010 and 28222 of 2013 contained in list IB seeking registration of unqualified ayurveda practitioners will stand dismissed. ``` ``` W.P.(C) Nos. 21869 of 2010, 20279 & 20495 of 2011, 29008 of 2013 and 169 of 2017 contained in list II seeking further action on the basis of the Government Orders issued in favour of the unqualified Naturopaths and Practitioners of alternative medicine are dismissed. ``` ``` W.P.(C) No. 17507 of 2011 challenging the Government Orders for registration of unqualified Naturopaths and alternative system of medicine is allowed and all the Government Orders specified above are accordingly quashed. ``` **S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.** **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.** _Rv_ W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 116 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21419/2009` ## `PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS FOR ENACTMENT OF THE SAID CENTRAL ACT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE STATE COUNCIL. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 27.06.1980 ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 26.03.1982 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 20.02.1997 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 01.03.1998 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 01.03.1999 ISSUED BY PETITIONER ``` ``` EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 13.04.1999 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 07.03.2002 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 03.03.2004 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 13.08.2004 ISSUED BY PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.06.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03.07.2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER COUNCIL TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.11.2008 ISSUED BY ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 117 ``` 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P15NIL EXHIBIT P16TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.02.2011 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16(a)TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ORDER DATED 21.02.2011 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` ``` rv ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 118 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16400/2009` ## `PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION DATED 09/12/1998, ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` - `EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.27784/2002(S) DATED 08/01/2003.` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' ACT OF 1953.` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956.` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS AND THE RELAVANT PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN MEDICINE CENTRAL COUNCIL ACT, 1970.` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS IN THE TWO CENTRAL ACTS FORMED AS A COMPARATIVE TABLE.` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE GO(MS) NO.145/09/H&FWD DATED 04/06/2009 IN MALAYALAM.` - `EXHIBIT P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2009.` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/06/2009.` - `EXHIBIT P9` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23/11/1962 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIGENOUS MEDICINES, GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS, TO ONE DR. P. KUNHI RAMAN. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 119 ``` EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/01/1973 ISSUED BY THE COUNCIL OF INDIGENOUS MEDICINE UNDER THE TCMP ACT TO DR. P. KUNHI RAMAN. EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. V-27016/14/2003-AY. DESK. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH DATED 8TH OCTOBER, 2004. EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PRACTITIONERS IN ALL SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE REGISTERED IN THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, REGISTRAR AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL DATED 11/06/2009) EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 11/06/2009 OF THE COUNCIL OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE REPRESENTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINES DATED 03/07/2009. EXHIBIT P15TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT THAT APPEARED IN THE HINDU DATED 11/05/2009. EXHIBIT P16TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL POLICY ON INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE HOMEOPATHY 2002. EXHIBIT P17TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN GO (RT) NO 3708/2008/H&FWD DATED 10/11/2008. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R3(A)TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED OF KERALA PARAMBARYA VAIDYA EKOPANA SAMITHI AS NO. 321/IV/2005. EXHIBIT R8(a)TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP 2875/2003 DATED 23/06/2005. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 120 ``` EXHIBIT R8(b)TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.997/1986. EXHIBIT R8(c)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP NO.2390/93 AND OP NO.3510/2001. EXHIBIT R8(d)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHY DATED 13/05/1998. EXHIBIT R8(e)TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.7530/G2/01/H&FWD DATED 28/03/2001. ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` rv ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 121 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13589/2010` ## `PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,MALAPPURAM) EXHIBIT P2(TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 04.09.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT) EXHIBIT P3(TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O. (MS)NO.145/09/H&FWD DATED 4-6-2009 IN MALAYALAM) EXHIBIT P3(a)TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O.(MS)NO.145/09/H&FWD) EXHIBIT 4TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.361/09/H&FWD DATED 19-10-2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT) EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.116/2010/H&FWD DATED 17.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST REPONDENT) EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.4.2010 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT) EXHIBIT P7(TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2-4- 2010 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ). RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R4-aA TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 09.08.2006 ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,KARNADAKA OF REGISTRATION. EXHIBIT R4-bA TRUE COPY OF THE RECOGNITION OF NEW SYSTEMS OF MEDICINES NOTIFICATION DATED 05.04.2005. ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` rv ``` ``` PS To Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 122 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13123/2010` ## `PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY DATED 4-09-2006RESPONDENT NO.3 EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DATED 19-10-2009, NO.1 EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P), 116/2010/F & FWD DATED 17-03-2010ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` P.S to Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 123 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12533/2011` ## `PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO. SO(MS) NO.145/09 DATED 4-6-2009 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNEMNT. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF S.O. (MS) NO. 293/09 DATED 17-08- 2009 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF GO (Rt) NO. 3307/2008/H & FWD, DATED 7-10-2009. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF S.O. (Rt) NO. 1617/10 DATED 16-04- 2010 ISSUED BYT THE GOVERNMENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER EXT.P4. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF S.O. (MS) NO. 114/11 DATED 21-02- 2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 15-03- 2011 IN W.P.(C). NO. 6579/2011 ``` ``` RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: ``` ``` EXHIBIT R-6(a)TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO. PKD LA84 DT. 09-02-2000 ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` rv ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 124 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6554/2011` ## `PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1(TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION BEARING NO.775/05 DATED 7.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, ERNAKULAM). EXHIBIT P2(TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O.(MS) NO.145/09/H&FWD DATED 4.6.2009 IN MALAYALAM). EXHIBIT P3 (TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O.(MS) NO.145/09/H&FWD DATED 4.6.2009). EXHIBIT P4(TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE COMMITTEE). EXHIBIT P5(TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4). EXHIBIT P6(TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.2.2011 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT). EXHIBIT P6(A)TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6). EXHIBIT P7(TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O. (M.S)NO.114/11/F&HWD DATED 21.2.2011). EXHIBIT P8(TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7). ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` ``` rv ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 125 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 6610/2011`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:`** ``` EXT.P1 DATED 21.02.2011: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O. (M.S) NO.114/11/H&FN, ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. ``` ``` EXT.P2 DATED 02.07.1976: TRUE COPY OF THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTIVE TO THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY GOVERNOR OF KERALA. ``` ``` EXT.P3 DATED 03.07.2009: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F. NO.6-9/2009-LEGAL SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.4 TO RESPONDENT NO.1. ``` ``` RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` ``` rv ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 126 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 7658/2011` ## `PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1(TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE WITH REGISTRATION NO T 3070) EXHIBIT P2(TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE GO (MS) NO 145/09/H & FWD DATED 4.6.2009 IN MALAYALAM. EXHIBIT P3(TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE GO (MS) NO 145/09/H&FWD DATED 4.6.2009) EXHIBIT P4(TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE COMMITTEE) EXHIBIT P5(TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-4) EXHIBIT P6(TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O (MS ) NO 114/11/F&HWD DATED 21.2.2011) ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7(TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-7) EXHIBIT P8(TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.2.2011 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT) ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` rv ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 127 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8755/2011`** ## `PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION (ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION) WITH REG. NO.T 1894/1998 DATED 09.12.1998 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O.(MS) NO.145/09/H & FWD DATED 4.6.2009 IN MALAYALAM. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O.(MS) NO.145/09/H & FWD DATED 4.6.2009 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE COMMITTEE. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O.(MS) NO.114/11/F&HWD DATED 21.2.2011. EXHIBIT P7TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` rv ``` ``` PS To Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 128 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6503/2011`** ## `PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1(TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION BEARING NO. 74 OF 1996 DATED 7.6.1996 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES) EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O(MS) NO. 145/09/H&FWD DATED 4.6.2009 IN MALAYALAM). EXHIBIT P3(TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O (MS). NO. 145/09/H& FWD DATED 4.6.2009.) EXHIBIT P4(TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE COMMITTEE). EXHIBIT P5(TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4). EXHIBIT P6(TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 5.2.2011 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT). EXHIBIT P7(TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED VIDE G.O (MS) NO. 114/11/F &HWD DATED 21.2.2011). EXHIBIT P8(TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7). ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` rv ``` ``` PS To Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 129 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 25120/2009` ## `PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 04/06/2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TRUE TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPIES OF SPECIMEN QUESTION PAPER RELATING TO SECOND YEAR BSMS DEGREE EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF SPECIMEN QUESTION PAPER RELATING TO SECOND YEAR BSMS DEGREE EXAMINATION. ``` - `EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF LITERATURE AVAILABLE IN SIDDHA MEDICINE PREPARED BY THE USMAN COMMITTEE.` - `EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SACRED, AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS AVAILABLE IN SIDDHA COMPILED BY THE PETITIONERS.` - `EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESEARCH LETTER THAT APPEARED IN THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY, VOL NO.39, NO. 1, JANUARYFEBRUARY, 2007 AT PP 52-54.` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPIES OF SPECIMEN MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS MADE BY INSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS THAT BEAR TESTIMONY TO THE APPREHENSIONS VOICED IN EXT.P6.` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 30/10/1996 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE.` - `EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/06/2005 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.2875/2003.` ``` EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/06/1997 IN OP NO.1118/1991. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 130 ``` EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.2875/2003 DATED 29/09/2003. EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KIRTADS TO ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON INDIGENOUS MEDICINE. EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO A TRADITIONAL MEDICAL PRACTITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAMILNADU SIDDHA SYSTEM TO MEDICINE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGISTRATION OF PRACTITIONERS) ACT, 1997 DATED 01/09/1998. EXHIBIT P14TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 17/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` ``` rv ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 131 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 23398/2009` ## `PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 04/06/2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TRUE TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPIES OF SPECIMEN QUESTION PAPER RELATING TO SECOND YEAR BSMS DEGREE EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPIES OF SPECIMEN QUESTION PAPER RELATING TO SECOND YEAR BSMS DEGREE EXAMINATION. EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF LITERATURE AVAILABLE ON SIDDHA MEDICINE PREPARED BY THE USMAN COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT P5A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SACRED AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS AVAILABLE IN SIDDHA COMPLIED BY THE PETITIONERS. ``` - `EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESEARCH LETTER THAT APPEARED IN THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY, VOL.NO.39, NO.1, JANUARYFEBRUARY, 2007 AT PP 52-54.` ``` EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPIES OF SPECIMEN MEDICAL PRESCRIPTIONS MADE BY INSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS THAT BEAR TESTIMONY TO THE APPREHENSIONS VOICED IN EXT.P6. ``` - `EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 30/10/1996 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE.` ``` EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/06/2005 RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP NO.2875/2003. EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/06/1997 IN ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 132 ``` OP NO.1118/1991. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P11 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP NO.2875/2003 DATED 29/09/2003. ``` - `EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY KIRTADS TO ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON INDIGENOUS MEDICINE.` - `EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF A CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO A TRADITIONAL MEDICAL PRACTITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TAMILNADU SIDDHA SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGISTRATION OF PRACTITIONERS) ACT, 1997 DATED 01/09/1998.` - `EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT ON THE INCIDENT DATED 22/06/2005 PUBLISHED IN A LEADING DAILY NEWS PAPER IN MALAYALA MANORAMA ALONG WITH TRUE TRANSLATION.` - `EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE REPORTING LARGE SCALE SMUGGLING OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE FROM INDIA IN KERALA KAUMUDI DATED 22/06/2005 ALONG WITH TRUE TRANSLATION.` - `EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY TBGRA TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE BROUCHURE PUBLISHED BY ENZYTMATIC THERAPY INC. USA.` - `EXHIBIT P18` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/02/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE MINISTER OF HEALTH ALONG WITH TRUE TRANSLATION` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 133 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 20823/2010`** ## `PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOZHIKODE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/05/1964 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/05/1965 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/09/1977 BY THE BOARD OF REVENUE, KERALA STATE. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE L3 LICENCE ISSUED. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2009 BY 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/07/2009 BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/08/2009. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` rv ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 134 ## **`APPENDIX OF W.P.(C) NO. 7406/2010`** ## `PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT NOTIFICATION NO.58710/G2/81/HD DATED 03.05.1982. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.06.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 27385 OF 2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.424/2009/H&FWD DATED 13.02.2009 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBT P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O(MS) 145/09/HD DATED 04.06.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.293/09/HD DATED 17.08.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` ``` rv ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 135 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28222/2013` ## `PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SIDDA MARUTHUVA INSTITUTE AT RAMACHANDRAPURAM. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 1-3- 1980 GRANTING EXEMPTIONS TO ONE K.EDISON VAIDYAN, TRIVANDRUM FOR PRACTICING SIDHA SYSTEM MEDICINE. ``` - `EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 3-5-1982.` - `EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 8-31985 GRANTING EXEMPTION TO ONE BADRADEVI AMMA FOR CONDUCTING A SIDHA VAIDYA HOSPITAL AT TRIVANDRUM.` - `EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.1118/1991 DATED 17-6-1997.` - `EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2005(3) KLT. P-620.` - `EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.145/2009/H&F DT. 4-6-2009.` ``` EXHIBIT P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED FROM OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` PS To Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 136 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21869/2010`** ## `PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:` `EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND THE BYLAW OF THE ASSOCIATION. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT CONTAINING INTERIM REPORT EXHIBIT P3 PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ASSOCIATION DISPATCHED ON 24-05-10` EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION RECEIPT SHOWING THE DESPATCH OF EXHIBIT P3. `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER (P) NO.116/2020/H & FWD DATED 17-03-10. EXHIBITP5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (N.D) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM SHIVANANDA SCHOOL OF YOGA. EXHIBIT P5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR REGISTRATION AS A YOGIC NATUROPATHIC PRACTITIONER FROM KERALA COUNCIL OF YOGA AND NATUROPATHIC PRACTITIONERS. EXHIBIT P5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION GIVEN BY MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS. EXHIBIT P5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C. CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 137 ``` YOGA (ND) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6(c)TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR REGISTRATION AS A YOGIC NATUORPATHIC PRACTITIONER FROM KERALA COUNCIL OF YOGA AND NATUROPATHIC PRACTITIONERS. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7(a)TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L. CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P7(b)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (N.D.) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P8(a)TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L. CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P8(b)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (ND) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P9(a)TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L. CERTIFICATE OF THE 5TH PETITIONER. ``` - `EXHIBIT P9(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (ND) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 5TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P10 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE OF THE 6TH PETITIONER.` ``` EXHIBIT P10(b)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (ND) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 6TH PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P11 (a)TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C.CERTIFICATE OF THE 7TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11(b)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (ND) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P12(a)TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE OF THE 8TH PETITIONER. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 138 ``` EXHIBIT P12(b) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (ND) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. ``` - `EXHIBIT P13(a) TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE OF THE 9TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P13(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (ND) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 9TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P14(a) TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE OF THE 10TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P14(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (DNYS) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 10TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P15(a) TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE OF THE 11TH PETITIONER` ``` EXHIBIT P15(b) ``` - `TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (DNYS) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 11TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P16(a) TRUE COPY OF THE UPACHARK EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EQUIVALENT TO S.S.L.C FOR ADMISSION IN DIPLOMA.` - `EXHIBIT P16(b)` - `TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA (D.N.Y.S) FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE 12TH PETITIONER.` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` Rv ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 139 ## `APPENDIX OF W.P.(C) NO. 20279/2011` ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:`** ``` EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.02.2001 ISSUED BY THE AKHILA BHARATIYA PRAKRITIK CHIKITSA PARISHAD, NEW DELHI. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.03.2003 ISSUED BY THE AKHIL BHARATIYA PRAKRITIK CHIKITSA PARISHAD, NEW DELHI. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.05.2009 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 19484/2008 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.09.2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 25585/2006 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 20.01.2011. ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` ``` Rv ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 140 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20495/2011` ## `PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.116/2010/H&FWD DATED 17/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) 2908/86/GEDN. DATED 16/08/1986. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOSPITAL MAHATMA NATURE CURE CENTRE. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8- 30/TCPC/CCRYN/06-07/1146 DATED 25/10/2006. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) 5005/2010/H&FWD DATED 23/12/2010. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOSPITAL CHAITHANYA NATURE CURE HOME AND YOGA CENTRE. EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10/08/1992 ISSUED BY THE ALL INDIA NATURE CURE FEDERATION. EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15/06/1990 ISSUED BY THE KERALA NATURE CURE FEDERATION. EXHIBIT P8(a)TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 04/05/1993 ISSUED THE ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF NATURE CURE AND YOGA. EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR REGISTRATION OF NATUROPATHY PRACTITIONERS AND ACCREDITATION OF NATUROPATHY INSTITUTIONS. EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/07/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` Rv ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 141 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29008/2013` ## `PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1(a) ``` ``` COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 26-11-2004 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1(b)COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 26-11-2004 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1(c)COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 26-11-2004 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. ``` - `EXHIBIT P1(d) COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 19/11/2008 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBITP1(e) COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 28/03/2002 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P1(f) COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 12-10-2002 ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P1(g) COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 30-10-2008 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 09-10-2009 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY KOTTAYAM TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P2(b) COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 25-6-2010 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P2(c) COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 25-6-2010 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P2(d) COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.` - `EXHIBIT P2(e) COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.` ``` EXHIBIT P2(f)COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY TO THE 6TH PETITIONER. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 142 ``` EXHIBIT P2(g) ``` ``` COPY OF DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE DATED 25-6-2010 ISSUED BY THE M.G.UNIVERSITY TO THE 7TH PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3COPY OF G.O(P)NO.26/2011 H&FWD DATED 20-01- 2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4COPY OF GO(P)146/2011/H&FWD DATED 28-2-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(a)COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8-3-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(b)COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8-3-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(c)COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8-3-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(d)COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8-3-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(e)COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8-3-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(f)COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8-3-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5(g)COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8-3-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 4TH APRIL, 2011 WPC.NO.8193 OF 2011. EXHIBIT P7COPY OF PROCEEDINGS - ORDER NO.E.1473/2011/MC DATED 16-5-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 143 ``` EXHIBIT P8COPY OF G.O(P)NO.116/2010/H&FWD DATED 17-3- 2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26-10-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` ``` rv ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 144 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 169/2017` ## `PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:` ``` P1TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA SCIENCE (DNYS) ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA SCIENCE (DNYS) ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P1(b)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA SCIENCE (DNYS) ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. P2TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA SCIENCE (DNYT) ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P2(a)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA SCIENCE (DNYS) ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P2(b)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE IN NATUROPATHY AND YOGA SCIENCE (DNYS) ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF NATUORPATHY SUBMITTED TO THE MINSITER OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF KERALA. P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.9.2006 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. P5TRUE COPY OF THE G.O DATED 19.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA. P6TRUE COPY OF THE G.O DATED 17.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA. P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O DATED 20.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 145 |`P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2007 IN`| |---|---| ||`WPC NO. 35489/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.`| |`P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED`| ||`06.09.2011 WPC NO. 17507/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE`| ||`COURT.`| |`P10`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.7.2016`| ||`SUBMITTED BY THE CIVIL SURGEON OF THE`| ||`DISTRICT HOSPITAL PALAKKAD TO THE 4TH`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2008 IN`| ||`WPC NO. 19484/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.`| |`P12`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2005 ISSUED`| ||`BY THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFATE`| ||`GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.`| ## `RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` rv ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 146 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) No. 17507/2011` ## `PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE INSTITUTIONS CONDUCTING BNYS DEGREE COURSE WHICH ARE APPROVED BY THE CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN YOGA AND NATUROPATHY. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF CENTRAL GUIDELINES ISSUED BY CCRYN. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) 26/2011/H&FD DATED 20/01/2011. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF ADULT CONTINUING EDUCATION EXTENSION AND FIELD OUTREACH (ACEEFO FOR SHORT), MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY DATED 09/04/2010) EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, CCRYN DATED 21/06/2011. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, CCRYN DATED 13/06/2011. EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P) 146/2011/H&FWD DATED 28/02/2011. EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN HINDU NEWSPAPER DATED 22/06/2011. EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NATUROPATHY (GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH) EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED SUJEEVITHAM MAGAZINE JUNE 2011. EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.12533/2011 DATED 26/04/2011. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R8(a)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04/09/2006 ALONG WITH THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE ``` W.P.(C) No. 21419/2009 & batch 147 ``` GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R8(b)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE OBTAINED BY THE ADDITIONAL 14TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE AKHILA BHARATHIYA PRAKRITI CHIKITSA PARISHAD, NEW DELHI. EXHIBIT R8(c)TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY TO THE ADDITIONAL 14TH RESPONDENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R8(d)TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 8TH MARCH, 1994 ISSUED TO SRI. P.M. USMAN, BY THE ALL INDIA NATURE CURE FEDERATION. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R8(e)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30TH MAY, 2011 ISSUED BY AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R8(f) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16TH MARCH, 2011 ISSUED BY AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. ``` - `EXHIBIT R8(g)` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 11/08/2011 ISSUED TO DR. B.T. CHIDANANDA MURTHY. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R8(h) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO DATED 19/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. ``` - `EXHIBIT R8(i)` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO DATED 17/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT R8(j) ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO DATED 23/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. ``` ``` /True Copy/ ``` ``` PS to Judge. ``` ``` rv ```