RAM KISHORE SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Nawab Khan has filed this writ petition with the following prayers : (i) to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the right of the petitioner to carry on his private medical practice in Indian medicine at district Bulandshahr. (ii) to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from prohibiting the petitioners to keep the primary instruments of diagnosis of Indian Medicines , namely, Stethoscope, Thermometer, B. P. Instrument, etc. and to provide first aid to the people in immediate requirement of medical care of as a part of practice of Indian Medicine. (iii) to issue any other writ, direction or order as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) to award costs of this petition to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioners case is that he has obtained a degree of "ayurved Ratan" from Hindi Sahitya sammelan, Prayag which is recognised all over the country. The petitioner applied for registration to the Government Ayurvedic and Unani Chikitsa Board under the Bihar development of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines Act, 1951, and was registered by the said Board (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). The U. P. Indian Medicine Act. 1939. provides for registration of Medical Practitioner and grant of qualified practitioner Certificate under Sections 27 and 30 of the Act. The petitioner alleges that Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Act no. XLIII of 1970) was enacted by the Parliament to provide for a constitution of a Central council of Indian Medicines and the maintenance of the Central Register of Indian Medicines and for matters connected therewith. Section 17 (3) of the Act provide that a medical practitioner of Indian Medicines enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicines, will have right to practice in Indian Medicines in any State and will carry the State privilege. Section 17 (3) of the Act provide that a medical practitioner of Indian Medicines enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicines, will have right to practice in Indian Medicines in any State and will carry the State privilege. The petitioner alleges that entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India provides for registration on legal medical and other professions, Act No. 48 of 1970 is passed by Central Legislature after taking sanction of President of India and, therefore, the provisions of the said Act in so far as they are in consistence with any State Act, enacted prior to it will override the provision of the State Act. The provisions of U, P. Act No. 10 of 1939 in so far as they disentitle the petitioner from practising Indian Medicine in the State of U. P. are, therefore, inconsistent with Section 17 of the act No. LXIII of 1970. The petitioner alleges that there are several medical practitioners who are not qualified at all but are registered under Section 50 of the U. P. Act No. 10 of 1939 on the ground of long experience of practice belonging to indigenous system registered in the year 1963-64. The petitioner alleges that he has a qualification of ayurved Ratna. The discrimination between the petitioner and the persons registered under Section 50 of the Act No. 10 of 1939 is, therefore, without any reasonable basis and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India. The petitioner alleges that recently in the month of May and June, 1992 respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the Officer subordinate to them conducted raids on the medical clinics of the petitioner and have warned the petitioner not to carry on medical practice. The respondent No. 3 had started compaign to take action to prosecute each and every medical practitioner of Indian Medicines either registered or unregistered and has threatened the petitioner and other registered medical practitioners to stop their practice otherwise they will be prosecuted. The petitioner keeps tethoscope, Thermometer, B. P. Instrument and other simple and primary instruments of diagnosis. These instruments are also required to disgrace in Indian medicine system--without these instruments it is not possible to diagnose and treat the patients. The petitioner alleges that respondent Nos. The petitioner keeps tethoscope, Thermometer, B. P. Instrument and other simple and primary instruments of diagnosis. These instruments are also required to disgrace in Indian medicine system--without these instruments it is not possible to diagnose and treat the patients. The petitioner alleges that respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 cannot have any objection for the possession of these instruments by the petitioner but the respondents are threatening the petitioner and are restraining him to keep those instruments. The action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in restraining and threatening the petitioner to practice Indian Medicine, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner alleges that he has been practising at district Bulandshahr and rendering service at his residence without any complaint of any member of public. ( 3 ) THIS Court by its order dated 9th November. 1998 directed the Senior Superintendent of police, Allahabad, to enquire the genuineness of the certificate of the petitioner and submit a report. Accordingly the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad, has sworn an affidavit before this Court in which he has stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 that the certificate of the petitioner has been certified by the Examination Controller. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag and is a genuine document. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, the Senior Superintendent of Police has reported that on a perusal of the Indian Medicine Central Act, 1970, it is clear that Hindi Sahitya sammelan has no recognition under Statute after 1967 for issuing the degree of vaidya visharad and ayurved Ratna. The Senior Superintendent of Police has requested this Court in paragraph 9 of the affidavit for issue of show cause notice to the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, prayag to explain under what legal authority it is Issuing the certificate which does not have statutory recognition. ( 4 ) MR. A. B. L. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Phul singh v. State of Haryana, 1986 (1) Punjab and Haryana High Court, 532 and Mukhtar Chand (Dr.) and others v. State of Punjab and others, VII AD (SC) 457, and has argued that the petitioner cannot be denied to carry on his profession simply because he has not been registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh as Medical Practitioner. ( 5 ) THE question before this Court is whether the petitioner should be granted relief prayed for in this writ petition. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the right of the petitioner to carry on his private medical practice in Indian medicine. This prayer can be allowed if the petitioner has qualification to be registered as medical Practitioner in the field of Indian Medicine. For the purpose, the Court must be satisfied about the petitioners competence and qualification to carry on practice as Medical Practitioner in indian Medicine. For satisfaction, we have perused the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and find that the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police in paragraph 8 has noted correct fact that the certificate of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, has no recognition under statute to issue any certificate of ayurved Ratna after, 1967 which the petitioner claims to have obtained in the year 1982. Thus, it is crystal clear that even if the certificate of the petitioner (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is not forged document but it has no recognition for the purpose of registration of the petitioner as medical practitioner in Indian Medicines. The petitioner appears to have no qualification or competence to practice or carry on a profession as Medical practitioner in the branch of Indian Medicine. The registration of the petitioner in State of Bihar as per Annexure-2 does not give any legal validity to the certificate issued to the petitioner by hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Annexure-1) In 1982 which has no recognition to issue any such certificate alter 1967. ( 6 ) THE petitioners allegation that the respondents are allowing several persons registered under section 50 of the Act (Act No. X of 1939) without any reasonable basis and thus the petitioner is being discriminated by respondents, does not require examination of this Court because the petitioner has not given any details of any such instance which according to him, will disclose any discrimination against the petitioner. At the same time the guarantee under Article 14 of the constitution of India can be availed by the petitioner on the strength of Illegal discrimination. At the same time the guarantee under Article 14 of the constitution of India can be availed by the petitioner on the strength of Illegal discrimination. If the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification and competence to practice as medical practitioner in the Branch of Indian Medicine, he cannot claim parity with the persons whom he alleges that they have been given registration under Section 50 of the Act (Act No. X of 1939)even without having any ability and qualification. So this Court does not find any force in this allegation of the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE allegation of the petitioner with regard to the effect and force of Indian Medicine Central council Act, 1970 (Act No. XLIII of 1970) has no merit on this score as we have noted in foregoing paragraph that the petitioner has no qualification from any recognised institution to carry on the profession of medical practitioner in Indian Medicine. ( 8 ) THE decision of the cases in Mukhiar Chand (Dr.) and others, (supra) and Phul Singh, (supra)are of no help to the petitioner who is hot holding any certificate of Ayurved Ratna worth recognition under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. This case needs no discussion in detail because of the non-applicability of this principle in favour of the petitioner. ( 9 ) FROM the foregoing paragraphs, this Court holds that petitioner Nawab Khan has no certificate of recognised Institution and as such he is not entitled to practice in any branch of Indian medicines. ( 10 ) THIS writ petition has no merit. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs. Binod Kumar Roy, J. ( 11 ) I agree. .