Md. Ashfaque Ansari vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3341 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of decision: 25th July, 2014.

+                               LPA 483/2014

       MD. ASHFAQUE ANSARI                                ..... Appellant
                   Through:            Md.Azam Ansari, Adv.

                                       Versus

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                             ..... Respondents
                    Through:           Mr.Dev P.Bhardwaj, Adv. with
                                       Mr.Abhishek Kumar Choudhary, Adv.
                                       for UOI.
                                       Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Adv. with
                                       Ms.Bandana Shukla, Adv.for R-
                                       3/GNCT of Delhi.
                                       Mr.Ashok Mahajan, Adv. for R-4&5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

C.M.No.11734/2014 (exemptions)

1.     Allowed subject to just exceptions.

LPA No.483/2014

2.     This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 28th May, 2014 of the

learned Single Judge of dismissal of CM No.7376/2014 for interim relief in

W.P.(C) No.3622/2014 preferred by the appellant.

3.     The appellant preferred the writ petition, from which this appeal

arises, impugning the order dated 1st May, 2014 of Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa

LPA No.483/2014                                                  Page 1 of 4
 Parishad, Department of Health & Family Welfare of the Government of

NCT of Delhi refusing to register the appellant / writ petitioner            as a

practitioner of Indian Medicine, for the reason of the Graduate in Ayurvedic

Medicine & Surgery (GAMS) qualification obtained by the appellant / writ

petitioner from the State Faculty of Ayurveda & Unani Medicine, Patna

being not recognized by the Central Council of Indian Medicine. Mandamus

is also claimed to so register the appellant / writ petitioner. Along with the

writ petition, the application aforesaid for interim relief for a direction for

grant of temporary registration to the appellant / writ petitioner during the

pendency of the writ petition was also filed.

4.     The writ petition and the application for interim relief came up first

before the learned Single Judge on 28th May, 2014 when though notice of the

writ petition was issued but considering the fact that the appellant / writ

petitioner till date has not been practising, the interim relief in the mandatory

form as sought was declined.

5.     The counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner has contended that the

appellant / writ petitioner, owing to the refusal of temporary registration is

unable to practice his profession for which he has qualified and unable to

earn a livelihood, causing great hardship to him.


LPA No.483/2014                                                      Page 2 of 4
 6.     We are however of the view that grant of the interim relief as sought

by the appellant / writ petitioner would amount to allowing the writ petition

itself. The respondent Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad which is the Body

empowered to register the qualified persons of Indian Medicine so as to

entitle them to practice in Indian Medicine having held the appellant / writ

petitioner to be not having the requisite qualification and thus not eligible to

be registered, till the said decision of the Body duly empowered to consider

applications for registration is set aside, it would not be proper to direct

issuance of a temporary registration / license to practice medicine to the

appellant / writ petitioner. It cannot of course be lost sight of that upon the

appellant / writ petitioner being so granted temporary registration, he would

be entitled in law to mete out medical treatment to persons suffering from

various ailments and if it were to be ultimately found that the appellant / writ

petitioner does not have the necessary qualification to practice in the said

field, in the interregnum irreparable harm and injury may be done to the

patients who may visit / consult the appellant / writ petitioner for their

treatment. The Supreme Court in Dayanand Vedic Vidhalaya Sanchalak

Samiti Vs. Education Inspector, Greater Bombay AIR 2008 SC 577, in

similar situation held that in such petitions, there is no scope for grant of any


LPA No.483/2014                                                      Page 3 of 4
 interim order and that there is no provision for grant of ad hoc approval (to

teachers in that case) and either approval is granted or rejected and there can

be no half measures and deprecated and set aside the interim order granted

by the High Court. Similarly, in Union of India Vs. Modiluft Ltd. (2003) 6

SCC 65, where the challenge in the writ petition was to the refusal to issue

"NOC", it was held that direction for issuance of such NOC can be issued

only after the Court comes to the conclusion that the refusal to issue the

same was bad, and not by an interim order. Yet again in Super Cassettes

Industries Ltd. Vs. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 5 SCC 488, the

Supreme Court cautioned that interim relief granting the final relief should

be given after exercise of great caution and in rare and exceptional cases.

7.     We therefore do not find any error in the discretion exercised by the

learned Single Judge in refusing to grant interim relief sought.

8.     The appeal is dismissed. However, it is open to the appellant / writ

petitioner to make a request before the learned Single Judge for expeditious

disposal of the writ petition.


                                                   CHIEF JUSTICE



                                              RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

JULY 25, 2014/pp