Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vasudev Sharma vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27315
1 WP-3857-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 29th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 3857 of 2007
VASUDEV SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Upendra Yadav - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
None for respondent No.2 though served.
ORDER
1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is finally heard.
2. The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, has been filed by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs :
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the instant petition
may kindly be allowed and a writ of mandamus and/or a
suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ be issued
against the respondents and following relief may kindly be
granted:-
i- Respondents may kindly be directed to issue the registration
certificate to the petitioners.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27315
2 WP-3857-2007
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have obtained the
Vaidya Visharad and Ayurvedic Ratna qualification from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Allahabad, which entitled them for registration and
practicing as Ayurvedik and Unani practitioners but they are being
denied registration and practice on the ground that the Madhya Pradesh
Ayurvedic, Unani Tatha Prakritic Chikitsa Vyavsayi Adhiniyam, 1970,
has been amended, and the qualifications issued by the Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Allahabad, have been derecognized.
4. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioners, by way of
amendment, have also challenged the order dated 16.08.2007 issued by
the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Sheopur, whereby the
petitioners herein have been directed to stop operating their clinics as,
they have been found to be violating the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Upcharyagriha Tatha Rajopachar Sambandi Sthapanaye
(Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam 1973 . The aforesaid order
has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the same does
not assig any reasons for directing the petitioners to close down their
establishments and the said order offends the fundamental rights of the
petitioners to run their livelihood.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
qualification in respect of the petitioner No.1 has been obtained even
prior to year 1989, and therefore, the amendment in the Act of 1970
made in the year 1989 would not apply on the petitioner No.1. By
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27315
3 WP-3857-2007
placing reliance on Annexure P/5 that appears to be an extract of some
book, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even
otherwise, an identical writ petition has been allowed by the Indore
Bench of this Court. However, he fairly admits that Annexure P/5 is an
unauthenticated document and no order passed by the Indore Bench has
been placed on record by the petitioners. Based on all these submissions,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petition
deserves to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1/State, by referring to the return filed, submits that the writ petition
filed by the petitioners suffers from delay and latches. The petitioners
claim to have obtained qualifications in the year 1989-1990, but the
present petition has been filed in the year 2007 without there-being any
explanation for the delay. He further submits that the issue involved in
the instant writ petition stands squarely answered by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.03.2003 passed in W.P.No.
1182/2003: Kripesh Kumar Shrivas Vs. State of M.P. and others
(Annexure R/2). He also submits that in the said order, the issue
regarding the retrospective applicability of the amendment made in the
Act of 1970 in the year 1989 has also been considered, and by placing
reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Gopal Krishna Sharma and others Vs. Jiwaji University, Gwalior and
others in M.P.No.488/1985 , the similar contentions as advanced by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27315
4 WP-3857-2007
petitioners have been rejected and accordingly, he submits that the
present petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.
9 . A perusal of the order dated 05.03.2003, passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur, in
W.P.No.1182/2003 (Annexure R/2), indicates that the petitioners therein
also possessed similar qualifications from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
Allahabad, and were seeking similar relief. The Coordinate Bench in the
said case, after considering all aspects of the matter, including the
arguments pertaining to the retrospective applicability of the amendment
incorporated in the year 1989, dismissed the said writ petition by a
detailed and speaking order.
10. The record further indicates that no rejoinder in the matter has
been filed by the petitioners controverting the stand taken by the
respondent No.1, that the issue involved in the matter stands squarely
answered against the petitioners in the case of Kripesh Kumar Shrivas
(supra).
11. In view of the above, since the issue involved in the instant
writ petition stands squarely answered by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court, the petition filed by the petitioners does not call for any
interference.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:27315
5 WP-3857-2007
12. In so far as challenge to order dated 16.08.2007 passed by the
Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), District Sheopur directing
petitioners to close down their clinical establishments is concerned, once
it is held that the qualification possessed by petitioners does not entitle
them to practice as Ayurvedic and Unani Chikitsak, they cannot be
permitted to operate their clinical establishments. In view whereof even
the order dated 16.08.2007 does not call for any interference. The
petition filed by the petitioners being bereft of merits, is hereby
dismissed.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
