Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-08-1998
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(SC)457; AIR1999SC468; JT1998(7)SC78; 1998(5)SCALE501; (1998)7SCC579; Supp2SCR143
..... all the vaids/hakims who had been registered under the east punjab ayurvedic and unani practitioners act, 1949 and the pepsu ayurvedic and unani practitioners act, 2008 bk and the punjab ayurvedic and unani practitioners act, 1963 as persons practising modern system of medicine for purposes of the drugs act. one dr. sarwan singh dardi who was a medical practitioner, registered with the board of ..... state (other than a register for registration of homeopathic practitioner). a notification can be faulted with only if those requirements are not satisfied. the punjab and haryana high court proceeded with an assumed intention of the rule-making authority that it could not be within its conception to bring vaids/hakims, the practitioners of ayurveda (indian system of ..... add mat as a matter of fact many ayurvedic vaids and unani hakims are prescribing allopathic drugs and mat the central government will abide by the decision of this court. here we are constrained to observe mat the stand taken by the central government shows utter bewilderment inasmuch as the authority which framed rule is not interested in supporting ..... .d. thakur, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-petitioners in the appeals and special leave petitions, has argued that the grounds on which the punjab & haryana high court dismissed dr. dardi's writ petition are not applicable to the appellants-petitioners and without noticing the difference the division bench denied relief to them so the judgments under appeal .....Tag this Judgment!