Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. This writ petition has been preferred as a public interest litigation by the Kerala Homoeo Medical Graduates Association and another, seeking a declaration that the first proviso to Section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 in repugnant to the provisions of Section 15 read with Sections 21 and 13 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and is therefore unconstitutional. Petitioners also sought for a declaration that from 1.8.1974 no person is entitled to practice Homoeopathic System of Medicine in the State of Kerala without recognized qualification and registration as registration is mandatory under sub-section 2 of Section 15 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. Petitioners also sought for various other reliefs. 2. Counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in Vanchiyoor Madhom Dhanwanthari Sannidhanam v. State of Kerala (2003 (1) KLT 520) and contended that this Court has prevented persons who do not fulfill the prescribed qualifications from practicing Ayurveda. Counsel also submitted that some criteria to be applied to the case of practitioners in Homoeopathy as well. Examining the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 as well as the provisions of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, we are not inclined to grant any declaration as prayed for by the petitioners. 3. Section 15(3) of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 stipulates that nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall affect the right of a practitioner of Homoeopathy enrolled on a State Register of Homoeopathy to practice Homoeopathy in any State in which on the commencement of this Act, a State register of Homoeopathy is not maintained if on such commencement, he has been practicing Homoeopathy for not less than five years. Section 15(4) of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 stipulates that any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of one year, or with fine of Rs.1,000/- or with both. Proviso to Section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 shows that the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, direct that this section shall not apply to any person or class of persons or to any specified area in the State where none of the three classes of practitioners mentioned above carries on medical practice. 4. Proviso to Section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 shows that the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, direct that this section shall not apply to any person or class of persons or to any specified area in the State where none of the three classes of practitioners mentioned above carries on medical practice. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit it is stated that Section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 enables the Government by making notification in the Gazette to direct that the Section shall not apply to any person or classes of persons or to any specified area in the State where none of the three classes of practitioners mentioned in the Section carries of medical practice. It is also stated that there are several genuine traditional practitioners in medicine especially practicing indigenous system of medicine like Ayurveda, Sidha, Unani, etc. and that to protect the interest of such genuine traditional practitioners of medicine, proviso was incorporated in Section 38 of the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, to make certain exemptions in respect of any person or classes of persons or to any specified area where there is non-availability of medial practitioners. Further it is stated that there is sufficient justification for incorporating the provision in the Act. It is also pointed out that indigenous system of medicine were prevalent in the country for several centuries and the people have faith in the said system of medicine, however, in most of these systems there are no established institutions available to teach this system, whereby depriving the chance to acquire qualification in a conventional manner in such system of medicine. 5. Taking into account the entire facts, we are of the view that there are sufficient justifications for exempting those category of persons. Petitioners have not established in what manner they have been discriminated. Further, it is stated by the Government Pleader that the State Government is intending to bring a suitable legislation covering all aspects of medical practice. The Kerala Medical Practitioners Bill, 1996 has been taken with the Central Government for getting prior clearance for introducing the bill in the State legislature. Further, it is stated by the Government Pleader that the State Government is intending to bring a suitable legislation covering all aspects of medical practice. The Kerala Medical Practitioners Bill, 1996 has been taken with the Central Government for getting prior clearance for introducing the bill in the State legislature. As and when the proposed legislation is enacted the entire scenario in respect of the disputes regarding the medical practitioners will be cleared of all doubts and misconceptions. We are of the view that if petitioners have got a case that anybody is violating the express provisions of the Central Act as well as the State Act, it is always open to them to point out the same before the Government and in such an event, the Government shall take appropriate action. Counsel however, brought to our notice that Ext.P19 representation has already been filed by the first petitioner before the Government. The Government shall take note of the grievance of the petitioners and take appropriate remedial measures. With the above observations, the Original Petition is disposed of. C.M. Application Nos.3553/2003, 2668/2004, 7902/2004, 1931/2005 and I.A.No.40/2004 stand allowed and I.A.No.14354/2003 stands dismissed.