JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - These three petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the controversies raised therein are identical. The challenge in these petitions to the constitutionality of Sections 8 and 9 of the U.P. Indian Medical Institutions (Acquisition and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1982 ('the Act' for short). Writ Petition No. 532 of 1985 was dismissed earlier by this Court by an order dated 30th Aug. 1985. This order was set aside in appeal by the Supreme Court by its order dated 16th Aug. 1986. That petition had been filed by the students of the Rashtriya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Suhagpur, Dhampur, district Bijnor. Writ Petition No. 13325 of 1983 was filed by the aforesaid institution challenging the vires of the aforesaid provisions as a result of which the petitioner society was excluded from running its institution imparting medical education in the system of Ayurved. While setting aside the order of this Court, the Supreme Court directed that the petition filed by the students as well as Writ Petition No. 13325 of 1983 (which was pending in this Court at that time) be disposed of, if possible, within three months for reasons of which we are not aware. For reasons not known to us the petitions could not be disposed of within three months as a result of which their Lordships of the Supreme Court were constrained to pass another order on April 27, 1988 directing that these cases be disposed of within three months from that date. In pursuance of this direction the Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed an order yesterday that the petitions be placed before us along with a connected petition No. 12626 of 1982 filed by another Ayurvedic College challenging the validity of S. 8. That is how these matters were placed before us for the first time yesterday. 2. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel, it would be necessary to have a look at the salient features of the enactment, its purpose and the scheme which was conceived for attaining that objective. The preamble of the enactment is important for our purpose and is, therefore, extracted here in full. 2. In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel, it would be necessary to have a look at the salient features of the enactment, its purpose and the scheme which was conceived for attaining that objective. The preamble of the enactment is important for our purpose and is, therefore, extracted here in full. It states:- "An Act to provide for the acquisition and management of certain non-government institutions imparting instruction in Ayurvedic and Unani-Tibbi Systems of medicines, to provincialize education in such systems of medicines, to regulate the imparting of instruction in naturopathy and Yoga Therapy and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Whereas, a large number of medical institutions imparting instruction in the Ayurvedic and Unani-Tibbi Systems of. medicines are operating in the State with mercenary motives : And, whereas, the standard of education, equipment and facility for studies obtaining in these institutions are not up to the mark; And, whereas, most of these institutions are not affiliated to any University in the State and the fate of students obtaining instructions in these institutions remains uncertain ; And, whereas, with a view to provincializing education in such systems of medicine and improving -standard of education and treatment therein, it is necessary to acquire certain existing institutions and to close down the rest; And, whereas, it is expedient to regulate the imparting of instructions in naturopathy and Yoga therapy; Now, therefore, it is hereby enacted in the Thirty-third year of the Republic of India as follows :". 3. We start with S. 3 which provides for acquisition of certain scheduled institutions which have been defined to mean a medical institution imparting instructions in Ayurvedic and Unani-Tibbi Systems of medicine specified in the Schedule together with the hospitals and dispensaries attached thereto...... It says on and from the appointed day, every scheduled institution together with all lands on which such institution stands, furniture's, equipments, stores, apparatuses etc. and all other properties, movable and immovable shall stand transferred to and vest absolutely in the State Government and shall be applied and used for the purposes of such institution. The next provision, viz. S. 4 states that on and from the appointed day, every scheduled institution shall.be administered by the State Government in such manner as the State Government may from time to time direct. The next provision, viz. S. 4 states that on and from the appointed day, every scheduled institution shall.be administered by the State Government in such manner as the State Government may from time to time direct. We then finally come to Sections 8 and 9 which have been the subject of main debate at the bar and in view of their importance, therefore, we are extracting the same- "8. Subject to the provisions of S. 9, no person other than a person authorised by the Central Government or the State Government shall, on or after the appointed day - (a) open, organise, maintain, manage or cause to be opened, organised, maintained or. managed any institution professing to undertake, conduct, provide or offer any instruction in Ayurvedic and Unani-Tibbi Systems of medicine; (b) adnilt or offer admission on payment of fee or without such payment to any course of instruction in such system of medicine; (c) receive any donation, subscription or fee (by whatever name called) in respect of any institution imparting instruction in such system of medicine; (d) make any arrangement or hold out that arrangements have been made for lecture, coaching or tuition or experiments in any laboratory with a view to imparting instruction in such system of medicine. 9. A medical institution imparting instruction in Ayurvedic or Unani-Tibbi System of medicine established before the appointed day may admit students enrolled in such institution on the appointed day from a lower class to higher class by way of promotion during a period of five years from the appointed day, and after the said period of five years, the provisions of S. 8 shall mutatis mutandis apply to every such institution." 4. The rest of the provisions are not material for our purpose and, therefore the same are being left out except the institutions included in the Schedule. These are (1) Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi; (2) Lal Bahadur Shastri Smarak Ayurvedic College, Handia (Allahabad); (3) Takmil-ut-Tib. College, Lucknow; and (4) Unani Medical College, Allahabad. 5. It is apparent from a bare look of the preamble that the enactment was provoked by a general complaint with regard to the manner in which a large number of medical. institutions imparting instructions in the indigenous systems of medicines such as Ayurvedic and Unani-Tibbi had sprung up and functioning over the years. The preamble says that these institutions were being run with mercenary motives. institutions imparting instructions in the indigenous systems of medicines such as Ayurvedic and Unani-Tibbi had sprung up and functioning over the years. The preamble says that these institutions were being run with mercenary motives. The standard of education, equipments and facilities made obtainable for studies in these institutions were not up to the mark. Most of these institutions were not affiliated to any University in the State with the result that the fate of the students obtaining instructions in these institutions remained uncertain. Another objective highlighted in the preamble is the need for provincializing education in indigenous systems of medicines and improving standard of education and treatment therein. 6. It was in this background that the enactment was conceived. The idea behind S. 8 was to put a stop to the mushroom growth of such institutions concerned solely with profit motives. The avowed object of the enactment is not only the well-being of the students of these institutions and their future but also the health of the people in general. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that the institutions imparting medical education must be bound by the highest norms and standards as their products have a direct impact on the health of the community at large. It was because of this objective that except for the four institutions mentioned in the Schedule as well as those which may be expressly authorised by the Central or the State Government under S. 8, no other institution was left free to open, organize, maintain, manage or cause to open, organise, maintain or manage or to undertake conduct provide or offer any instructions in Ayurvedic and Unani-Tibbi Systems of medicine. S. 9 of the Statute, on the other hand, had the objective of preserving the interest of those students who were already enrolled on the, appointed day for a period of five years so that if they were students in lower class in such institutions they could conclude their studies within a period of five years from the date of their enrolment. 7. Having set out the salient features of Sri Rishi Ram who argued all these three petitioner on behalf of the petitioners. 7. Having set out the salient features of Sri Rishi Ram who argued all these three petitioner on behalf of the petitioners. He assailed the validity of S. 8 primarily on the ground that it placed a total ban on the existing institutions imparting these systems of medicines from opening, organising and managing such institutions without there being any guidelines disclosed in the Statute. This, learned counsel argued, placed an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 8. We regret our inability to accept the submission. The preamble incorporates a legislative finding that except for the scheduled institutions the rest of them were being run on lines which called for immediate and strong action by the State. Every single consideration indicated in the preamble was germane for banning such institution. For instance, it can hardly be disputed that the institutions in which the instructions imparted, equipments and other paraphernalia are sub-standard, ought not to be allowed to continued till they have attained that degree of efficiency which is essential for imparting such medical education. Likewise it cannot be contested that the institutions were not affiliated to any University in the State seriously affect the fate of the students obtaining instructions therein and put their future in jeopardy. 9. It will thus be seen that the preamble of the enactment and its scheme provide sufficient guidelines so as to justify the enactment of S. 8. The preamble also furnishes a basis which may guide the State Government in considering a claim which may be forwarded by an institution for authorisation under S. 8. 10. Further, we do not agree with Sri Rishi Ram that S. 8 places a total ban on the institutions for all times. It expressly vests in the Central and State Governments with the power to grant authorisation to the institutions other than the Scheduled institutions. Any institution which has the requisite infra-structure for running institutions imparting medical instructions in these systems can, therefore, always approach the Central or State Government with a request that it may be authorised to run medical education in these systems and that it may on that ground be granted the necessary affiliation to a State University. 11. These restrictions thus plainly fall within cl. (6) of Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution being reasonable and necessary in the interest of general public. For if there 1988 All. 11. These restrictions thus plainly fall within cl. (6) of Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution being reasonable and necessary in the interest of general public. For if there 1988 All. L. J./68 IX (1) is no check on the growth of such spurious medical institutions, the dangers to the community would assume alarming proportions. Standards of medical education must, therefore, be jealously guarded by all. The enactment, in our opinion, is designed to protect both the students and the public at large from the hazards arising from the sub- standard education imparted in such institutions. 12. In this connection, we also refer to the assertions in the counter-affidavit of Sri Narendra Bahadur Srivastava filed on behalf of the respondents in Writ Petition No. 13325 of 1983 in which the reasons why the four institutions mentioned in the Schedule were placed in a separate category have been disclosed. For example, these were found affiliated to the Universities established by law in U.P. It is apparent that affiliation ensures that the institutions are being run on sound lines and it would not have been granted by the Universities if they had not satisfied them selves as to the quality and standard of education being imparted in these four institutions. 13. Our conclusion, therefore, is that S. 8 is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any constitutional or other infirmity. So far as S. 9 is concerned it is entirely unexceptionable. It merely purports to protect the interests of the students who may already have been pursuing their studies in lower classes on the appointed day. We may, however, add that it ought to be open to any institution proposing to impart medical education to approach the State or Central Government with a representation that has the requisite infrastructure to impart such education for necessary authorisation under S. 8. Indeed the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 13325 of 1983 alleges to have already made such a representation. And such representations can be considered on merits. 14. In Writ Petition No. 13325 of 1983 Sri 1ishi Ram made another submission. He said that the institution has been persistently pressing for its affiliation with Kanpur University right from the year 1977. But no orders were passed upon their representation until recently when the State Government rejected the request of the petitioner solely on the ground of S. 8. In Writ Petition No. 13325 of 1983 Sri 1ishi Ram made another submission. He said that the institution has been persistently pressing for its affiliation with Kanpur University right from the year 1977. But no orders were passed upon their representation until recently when the State Government rejected the request of the petitioner solely on the ground of S. 8. We think that in case the petitioner succeeds with the Central or State Government in getting the necessary authorisation under S. 8 petitioner's request for affiliation can be considered by the Government afresh. 15. So far as Writ Petition No. 532 of 1985 which has been filed by the students of the Rashtriya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Suhagpur, Dhampur, District Bijnor, is concerned, the sole relief claimed by them was that this Court may direct the State Government to consider the case of affiliation of the institution and permit the petitioners to appear at the examination conducted by that University. We cannot compel the Kanpur University to allow the petitioners to appear at the examination conducted by it unless the institution in which they are studying is granted affiliation in accordance with law. Till that is done no relief can be granted to the petitioners. In regard to the affiliation of the institution we have already made our comments hereinabove and it is not necessary to repeat them. 16. The result is that all these writ petitions fail and are dismissed. The Central or State Government may, however, if the petitioner institutions approach them, for being authorised under S. 8 to run their institutions, consider their request at the earliest and dispose it of according to law. If any representation is pending with the Government as alleged in Writ Petition No. 13325 of 1983, the same may be disposed of by the concerned Government after necessary enquiry within a reasonable time. There will, however, be no orders as to costs.