ORDER 1. The appellant herein is an Association of Medical Practitioners registered under Hyderabad Act 1 of 1312 Fasli. The members of the Association claimed that they are qualified medical practitioners (Vaidyas) and are entitled to practise in the Indian system of medicine in the district of Sholapur of the State of Maharashtra. 2. In the year 1961, the Maharashtra State Legislature passed an Act known as the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. Subsequently Section 33 of the Act was struck down by the High Court being void. In the year 1970, Parliament passed an Act known as the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Sub-section (I) of Section 17 of the Act provided that 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. The members of the appellant Association do not hold any such qualification as contemplated in the aforesaid section. However subsection (2) of Section 17 further provided that any person who possesses a recognised medical qualification and is enrolled on a State register or the Central register of Indian medicine, he shall be entitled to practise Indian system of medicine in any State. 3. Subsequently, the Maharashtra State Legislature passed an amending Act known as the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners (Amendment) Act, 1978 which received the assent of the President on 14-11-1979. Amended Section 33 provided that notwithstanding anything contained in law for the time being in force, no person other than the medical practitioner whose name is entered in the register maintained under the Act; or the register or the list prepared and maintained under the Bombay Homoeopathic and Biochemic a Practitioner's Act, 1959 or under any other law for the time being in force in relation to the qualifications and registration of homoeopathic or biochemic practitioners in any part of the State; or the register prepared and maintained under the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965; or the Indian medical register prepared and maintained under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 shall practise any system of medicine in the State. 4. It is not disputed that the members of the appellant Association do not fall within any of the clauses of the amending Act and, therefore, are not entitled to practise in the State of Maharashtra. 4. It is not disputed that the members of the appellant Association do not fall within any of the clauses of the amending Act and, therefore, are not entitled to practise in the State of Maharashtra. It is under such circumstances the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay. The petition was dismissed summarily. It is against the said judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised number of arguments. One of the arguments raised is that under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33, the State Government has a power to relax any condition to enable persons to practise in the State and, therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the representations of the members of the appellant Association for relaxation of the aforesaid condition. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra has no objection that in case the representations are filed, they shall be considered in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, the members of the appellant Association may file the representations individually within four weeks from today. In case such representations are filed, the State of Maharashtra shall consider the same in e accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.