Judgment :- 1. The aphorism of Hahnemann, 'similia similibus curantur' appears to have appreciable appeal among the people of Kerala. Small doses and large dilution, one drug at a time, and judging of efficacy of the drug only on humans, may be some such attractions. The clamour for the establishment of a Homoeopathic dispensary and the dispute about the location, have resulted even in writ litigations. Many of the Homoeopaths are already in Court, seeking relief against what they feel a continuing grievance. (Vide O. P. Nos. 3815/86, 3928/86, 3981/86 etc.) This writ petition too projects a facet of such grievance. 2. In essence, the complaint is against the Kerala Legislature. Almost a quarter of a century ago, the then Travancore-Cochin State passed an enactment, Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 which inter alia provided for the regulation and registration of practitioners engaged in the practice of modern medicine, Homoeopathic Medicine or Indigenous Medicine. The Act was replacing the earlier one, the Travancore Medical Practitioners Act, 1119 which was in force in the former Travancore-Cochin area. The attractive provision of the Travancore-Cochin enactment was S.23 which enabled unqualified practitioners who bad already been in the field for a period of five years prior to 1-4-1953 to be eligible for registration. The Act was, however, territorially limited in its application to the Travancore-Cochin State. For reasons unknown, and which do not directly concern the Court in these proceedings, the Act had not been extended to the Malabar area. This obviously had resulted in a differential treatment to the unqualified Homoeopaths of the Malabar area. The situation stagnated for them for about two decades. The Kerala Legislature then passed the Kerala Medical Practitioners Bill, 1972. It did not, however, become law. The President did not give his assent to the Bill. Some modifications were suggested. Soon after the return of the Bill, it got lapsed. 3. In 1973, Parliament passed the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 providing, inter alia, for the constitution of a Central Council of Homoeopathy, recognition of Medical qualification and enrolment of medical practitioners in the State register. It is pointed out that though the Act was brought into force, it could not be effectively implemented in the absence of a State register made mention of in S.15(3) of that Act. It is pointed out that though the Act was brought into force, it could not be effectively implemented in the absence of a State register made mention of in S.15(3) of that Act. The petitioner contends that for a proper implementation of the Central Act, State legislation for regulation and registration of medical practitioners is indispensable. The Government had been alerted regularly and repeatedly all the while. Large number of memoranda, letters and representations, as submitted to Chief Minister, Ministers and Members of the Legislative Assembly, it is alleged, have not so far invoked any response. The petitioner would contend that this is an executive remiss and this Court has, in such rare cases, power to compel the State to perform its constitutional and legal obligations. The petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction directing the State of Kerala to introduce and pass appropriate legislation for the implementation of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. 4. The prayer for the petitioner is misconceived. Despair over the Homoeopaths' present plight might have justified the petitioner in knocking at the doors of this Court also. The Court must, however, be conscious of the limitations of its jurisdiction. The modern Government is built upon a foundation of separate powers: Parliament makes the laws; the Executive executes them and the Courts settle disputes over their meaning. Elder Witt observes in the Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, April 19,1986, pp 373-877: "In practice, however, the lines are often blurred." Whatever be the generality, the lines are fairly clear in the present case. The petitioner's appeal has necessarily to be to the Legislature. 5. It is the Legislature that has necessarily to take stock of the relevant factors, and apportion priorities for the topics and aspects of legislation. A fairly long list of Ordinances still awaiting legislative treatment, perhaps indicates the constraints of time and of other factors in legislative business. Those in whom the administration has been vested by the democratic process, have the authority and the duty to listen to matters crying for their speedy action. When the Earl of Selborne in his book 'State and Citizen', observed that the House of Commons has more sense than any one in it, he was only emphasising the greatness of the collective wisdom of legislature. In areas where the executive or legislative limbs of the Government have to act, the Court shall refrain from encroachment. When the Earl of Selborne in his book 'State and Citizen', observed that the House of Commons has more sense than any one in it, he was only emphasising the greatness of the collective wisdom of legislature. In areas where the executive or legislative limbs of the Government have to act, the Court shall refrain from encroachment. That well-known principle has been recently reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of H. P. . Student's Parent, Medical College, Simla, AIR 1985 SC 910 at page 913. The Court observed: "It is entirely a matter for the executive branch of the Government to decide whether or not to introduce any particular legislation. Of course, any member of the legislature can also introduce legislation but the Court certainly cannot mandate the executive or any member of the legislature to initiate legislation, howsoever necessary or desirable the Court may consider it to be. That is not a matter which is within the sphere of the functions and duties allocated to the judiciary under the Constitution." 6. Counsel submitted that some of the observations in the above decision would justify the Court to interfere when there is an executive remissness. Public interest litigation is an area where such intervention by Court is noticed and experienced. The submission, however, overlooks the fact that in a matter like the necessity or priority for a legislation, executive remissness is not easily established. The writ petition is bound to fail in the above circumstances. It is accordingly dismissed. Dismissed.