THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to issue a certificate of Registered Medical Practitioner to the petitioner under the provisions of the Gujarat Medical Practitioners Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the gujarat Act) and to enroll him under the said Act. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is a qualified practitioner in ayurvedic System of Medicine. He has learnt the science of Ayurvedic Medicine by experience and by undergoing postal tuition from recognised and wellknown institutions. He has been staying in the city of Ahmedabad and has been following the said profession of practising Ayurvedic system of medicine prior to more than 15 years of filing of the petition. A certificate of registration from the Registrar of the Board of Private Medical Practitioners was also issued in his favour which is also annexed to the petition. Similarly, he has also got a certificate from Bhartiya Chikitsa Panjian Board, Jaipur of Rajasthan on 14/09/1957 issued-by the said Board situated in Rajasthan. He has also produced a certificate issued by Silver Jubilee Medical College of calcutta certifying that he had passed final examination held by the said institution. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was entitled to get registration and enrolment in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Act. He, therefore, made an application for the said purpose. A certificate was issued to him by the Registrar of Gujarat Board of Ayurvedic and Unani system of Medicine, Ahmedabad which is annexed at Annexure d wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is described as one of the persons mentioned in item No. 6 of Notification No. GHP/82/gmp/1171/1801 (75)-D dated 25- 4-1975. The said item No. 6 reads as under :"persons who are hereditary practitioners in Ayurvedic or Unani System of medicine for a period of 10 years prior to the 22/09/1964. The said item No. 6 reads as under :"persons who are hereditary practitioners in Ayurvedic or Unani System of medicine for a period of 10 years prior to the 22/09/1964. "regarding the registration of the name of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions -of the Gujarat Act, a letter was written to him by the registrar of Gujarat Board on 7/12/1978 stating therein that since he did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed under the Gujarat Act nor under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the central Act), that he was not entitled to get registration under the Gujarat act. His application, for the purpose of allowing to continue to practise, was considered by the Board and the said application was granted. On the basis of the said certificate the petitioner had continued his practice throughout the State. By a communication dated 2/02/1979, the petitioner was informed drawing his attention to the earlier letter dated 7/12/1978, which we have referred to above, that his application for registration could not be granted. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. H. B. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. D. Desai, learned A. G. P. for the respondents. Mr. Shah has mainly contended that since the petitioner was qualified as per the certificate issued by Bhartiya Chikitsa Panjian Board, Rajasthan and has obtained registration from the said Board constituted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Desiya chikitsa Adiniyam, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the rajasthan Act), he is entitled to get registration even under the Gujarat Act and non-granting of certificate and non-inclusion of his name in the Register maintained under the Gujarat Act is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and unlawful. He has further contended that under sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 17 of the Gujarat Act read with the Notification dated 24/04/1975, he is entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from the said notification including issuance of a certificate and giving of evidence as an expert as mentioned in Sec. 31 of the Gujarat Act. ( 5 ) WE are of the opinion that the arguments advanced by Mr. Shah cannot be accepted. ( 5 ) WE are of the opinion that the arguments advanced by Mr. Shah cannot be accepted. The Gujarat Medical Practitioners Act, 1963 has been enacted providing for registration of practitioners of Ayurvedic and Unani system of Medicine and making certain provisions relating to medical practitioners generally in the State of Gujarat. A register is required to be maintained under Sec. 17 of the said Act. Registered Medical Practitioner is defined as a practitioner whose name is entered in the register maintained under the Act. Section 17 is material for the purpose of present petition and the relevant sub-sections read as under :" (I) As soon as may be after appointed day, the Registrar shall prepare and maintain thereafter a register of Ayurvedic and Unani practitioners for the State, in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) The register shall be in the prescribed form and there shall be one register consisting of two parts. Part I shall include the names of registered practitioners possessing any of the recognised qualifications and Part II shall include the names of registered practitioners other than those included in Part I. (3) Every person who possesses any of the qualifications specified in the schedule shall, at any time on an application made in the prescribed form to the registrar and on payment of a fee of ten rupees, entitled to have his name entered in the register. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (3) the name of every person who on the day immediately preceding the appointed day, stood registered in any register kept under the Bombay Medical Practitioners Act, 1938, (Bom. XXVI of 1938), in its application to the Bombay area of the State or the said Act as adapted and applied to the Saurashtra area of the State or under any other corresponding law shall be entered in the register prepared under this Act without such person being required to make an application or to pay any fee. (5) Any person not being a person qualified for registration under sub-sec. (3) or (4) who proves to the satisfaction of the Committee appointed under sub-sec. (8) that he had been regularly practising the Ayurvedic or Unani System of medicine : (i) In the Bombay area of the State of Gujarat on the 4/11/1941 but his name was not entered in the register maintained under the Bombay Medical practitioners Act, 1938 (Bom. (3) or (4) who proves to the satisfaction of the Committee appointed under sub-sec. (8) that he had been regularly practising the Ayurvedic or Unani System of medicine : (i) In the Bombay area of the State of Gujarat on the 4/11/1941 but his name was not entered in the register maintained under the Bombay Medical practitioners Act, 1938 (Bom. XXVI of 1938), or (ii) In the Saurashtra area of the State of Gujarat on the 1/11/1951 but his name was not entered in the register maintained under the Bombay Medical practitioners Act, 1938 (Bom. XXVI of 1938), as adapted and applied to the said area, shall, on an application made in the prescribed form within a period of four years from the appointed day and accompanied by a fee of ten rupees and the prescribed documents, be entitled to have his name entered in the register. (6) Any person not being a person qualified for registration under sub-sec. (3) or (4) who proves to the satisfaction of the Committee appointed under sub-sec. (8), (a) that he has been regularly practising the Ayurvedic or Unani System of medicine in a merged territory or a merged area from a period of not less than ten years before the 1/05/1956, or (b) that he has been regularly practising the Ayurvedic or Unani System of medicine in the Kutch area of the State for a period of not less than ten years before the appointed day, shall, on an application made in the prescribed form within a period of one year from the appointed day and accompanied by a fee of ten rupees and the prescribed documents be entitled to have his name entered in the register. "5a. Section 30 puts prohibition on medical practice by persons not registered or enlisted. Section 31 lays down that registered practitioners are competent to give valid certificates or expert evidence. It reads as under :"31. Registered Practitioners competent to give valid certificates or expert evidence.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a birth or a death certificate, or a fitness certificate, or any other certificate, required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified practitioner, shall be valid only if it has been signed or authenticated by a practitioner registered under: (i) this Act; (ii) the Bombay Medical Act, 1912, (Bom. VI of 1912) or the said Act as adapted and applied to the Saurashtra area of the State or any other corresponding law for the time being in force in any part of the State; (iii) any law for the time being in force in relation to the qualifications and registration of Homoeopathic practitioners in any part of the State, or (iv) the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( (Cli of 1958 ). (2) No person other than a practitioner registered under any of the laws specified in sub-sec. (1) shall be qualified to give evidence at any inquest or in any Court of law as an expert under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (i of 1872) on any matter relating to medicine, surgery or midwifery. "from the conjoint reading of Sees. 17, 30 and 31, it becomes clear that a register is required to be maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The said register is in two parts Part 1 and II and every person who possesses any of the qualifications specified in Schedule is entitled to his name entered either in Part I or in Part II according to the qualifications possessed by him. Sub-sees. (5) and (6) deal with a separate class of persons. The persons mentioned in those sub-sections are not qualified for registration under sub-sees. (3) and (4 ). According to those sub-sections, if they prove to the satisfaction of the Committee appointed under sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 17, that certain conditions laid down in those respective sections are fulfilled, they will be entitled to have their names entered in the register. The resultant effect would be that the embargo put by the Legislature under Sec. 30 prohibiting practice, will not be applicable in their cases and they can continue practice if their names are entered in the register. The period prescribed under subsec. (6) is over since long and it is not even the case of the petitioner that he had made the application within the stipulated time. But it appears that after the Gujarat Act, Parliament has passed the Indian Medicine Central Council act, 1970 (Central Act ). Section 17 of the Central Act reads as under :"17. Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in Second. Third and fourth Schedules to be enrolled .- (1) Subject to the Other provisions contained in this Act. But it appears that after the Gujarat Act, Parliament has passed the Indian Medicine Central Council act, 1970 (Central Act ). Section 17 of the Central Act reads as under :"17. Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in Second. Third and fourth Schedules to be enrolled .- (1) Subject to the Other provisions contained in this Act. any medical qualification included in the Second. Third or fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine. (2) Save as provided in Sec. 28, no person other then a practitioner of Indian medicine who possesses a recognised medical qualification and is enrolled on a State register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine ; (a) shall hold office as Vaid, Siddha, Hakim or Physician or any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any Institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) shall practise Indian medicine in any State; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; (d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any Court of. law as an expert under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on any matter relating to Indian Medicine. (3) Nothing contained in sub-sec. (2) shall affect, (a) the right of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of indian Medicine to practise in any State merely on the ground that. law as an expert under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on any matter relating to Indian Medicine. (3) Nothing contained in sub-sec. (2) shall affect, (a) the right of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of indian Medicine to practise in any State merely on the ground that. on the commencement of this Act, he does not possess a recognised medicai qualification; (b) the privileges (including the right to practise any system of medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian Medicine for the time being in force in any State on a practitioner of Indian Medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine; (c) the right of a person to practise Indian Medicine in a State in which, on the commencement of this Act, a State Register of Indian Medicine is not maintained if, on such commencement, he has been practising Indian Medicine for not less than five years; (d) the rights conferred by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (including the right to practise medicine as defined in clause (f) of Sec. 2 of the said Act), on persons possessing any qualifications included in the schedules to the said Act. (4) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-sec. (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. "looking to clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of the Central Act, it becomes clear that though sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 17 provides that no person other than a practitioner of Indian Medicine who possesses a recognised medical qualification is entitled to practise, the said provision does not affect the right of a practitioner of Indian Medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine to practise Indian Medicine in any State merely on the ground that on the commencement of that Act (Central Act), he did not possess a recognised medical qualification. Thus, the effect of the Central Act is that even though the petitioner had not made an application under the provisions of clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 17, he can continue to practise. Thus, the effect of the Central Act is that even though the petitioner had not made an application under the provisions of clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 17, he can continue to practise. It appears that because of this provision that a Notification referred to by us came to be issued on 25/04/1975 and it is not disputed before us that the petitioner is practising even today. ( 6 ) THE short question, however, is whether the petitioner is entitled to get registration under the Gujarat Act or that he is entitled to issue certificate having legal validity or can gives evidence as described in Sec. 31 of the act. ( 7 ) AS discussed above, to practise and to get the name registered in the register maintained under Sec. 17 of the Act and to issue certificate as contemplated by Sec. 30 of the Act are two separate and independent aspects. The Legislative intend behind the Gujarat Act appears to be amply clear to us and it is that so far as the registration is concerned, it is to be granted in favour of only those persons who possesses recognised qualification as laid down in the Act. It is not even the case of the petitioner that he possesses those qualifications and yet he has been denied the said benefit and that his name is not included in the register. Sub-sec. (5), (6) and (7) of Sec. 17 of the Act deal with those persons who are not otherwise qualified for registration under the Act but with a view to safeguarding their interests that a provision is made allowing them to practise. In our considered opinion, therefore, if the petitioner is not possessing the recognised qualification as laid down in the Act, he cannot insist that his name should be included in the register maintained for those persons who possess recognised qualifications. The two clauses, in our opinion, can be said to be independent, separate and the classification apart from arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable, is really rational, reasonable and is based on intelligible differentia. Therefore, so far as the prayer of the petitioner to include his name in the register is concerned, in our judgment, the said prayer cannot be granted by the Court. Therefore, so far as the prayer of the petitioner to include his name in the register is concerned, in our judgment, the said prayer cannot be granted by the Court. ( 8 ) IF that is the position in law, the second ground will obviously and automatically fall inasmuch as a valid certificate required by law can be granted only by registered practitioners. If the petitioner is not possessing recognised qualification and if on that ground his name cannot be included in the register, he cannot make grievance that he should be allowed to issue a certificate required by law and that the certificate issued by him should be treated as valid nor he can be authorised to give evidence at any inquest or any Court of law as an expert under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act or any matter relating to medicine, surgery or midwifery. In our opinion, though the Legislature had made provisions that the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, direct that subject to such corditions as the State Government may deem fit to impose, may allow such persons to practise and if in exercise of the said power the State Government has issued a notification allowing the petitioner or other persons to practise the only effect would be that the bar created by Sec. 30 would not operate against those persons. But nothing more than that. Those persons who are allowed to practise pursuant to the issuance of notification by the State Government do not fall within the class of persons possessing recognised qualifications and they neither can claim inclusion of their names in the register maintained under the Act nor can claim the benefit under Sees. 30 and 31 of the Act. ( 9 ) MR. Shah further contended that the petitioner was qualified as per the certificate issued by Bhartiya Chikitsa Panjian Board, Rajasthan at Jaipur and had obtained registration from the said board constituted under the provisions of law enacted by the Rajasthan Legislature. He submitted that once a registration has been granted under the provisions of the said law, a person who is entitled to get registration under the same branch of medicine if he is otherwise qualified, cannot be refused registration in the same branch of medicine on the ground that there was no provision in a statute of some other State. He submitted that once a registration has been granted under the provisions of the said law, a person who is entitled to get registration under the same branch of medicine if he is otherwise qualified, cannot be refused registration in the same branch of medicine on the ground that there was no provision in a statute of some other State. According to him a citizen with qualification of a recognised medical practitioner of Ayurvedic System of Medicine in rajasthan has right to do the said profession throughout the territory of India and he cannot be denied registration in the same branch of medicine in Gujarat on the ground that the Gujarat Act does not make provision for his registration under the Gujarat Act. We are, however, unable to agree with the said contention raised by Mr. Shah. Nothing has been brought to our notice by which he claims such a right. In our opinion, before getting the registration under the Gujarat Act, he has to satisfy the authority that he is eligible to get registration not only under the provisions of the Rajasthan Act, but under the provisions of the Gujarat Act. It is not disputed even by Mr. Shah that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for the purpose of getting registration under the Gujarat Act, and therefore, in our opinion, the action of non-granting of registration in favour of the petitioner by the respondent authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or unreasonable. Nothing has been shown to us even from the Act of Rajasthan to which the reference is made that in what circumstances the registration was granted in favour of the petitioner and what were the requirements as laid down in the said Act for the purpose of registration. In these circumstances there is no question of making comparison or considering the provisions of the Gujarat Act with the Rajasthan Act on which the reliance is placed by the petitioner. In fact, looking to the provisions of the Indian medicine Central Council Act, 1970 it becomes clear that not that on the ground that a particular person has obtained registration under a particular act, ipso facto that person is entitled to get registration under some other act. This becomes clear if one considers clause (a) of sub-sec. In fact, looking to the provisions of the Indian medicine Central Council Act, 1970 it becomes clear that not that on the ground that a particular person has obtained registration under a particular act, ipso facto that person is entitled to get registration under some other act. This becomes clear if one considers clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 17 of Central Act which is quoted above by us in the earlier part of the judgment. By the said clause it is specifically provided that no person other than a practitioner of Indian Medicine who possesses a recognised medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of indian Medicine can perform certain functions but the right of a practitioner of Indian Medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine to practise indian Medicine in any State merely on the ground that on the commencement of that Act he did not possess a recognised medical qualification. In other words, by the said provision if any person has got enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine, he may be. allowed to practise; but then, in spite of that certain disabilities which have been mentioned in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 17 will still remain. Therefore, on either of the grounds the contention of mr. Shah on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) IN our opinion, therefore, none of the contentions raised by Mr. Shah is not well founded and we are not in a position to uphold any of the contentions. In the result, the petition fails and the rule is discharged, however, with no order as to costs. .