Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-This writ petition is directed to seek the following reliefs apart from the general reliefs:- “(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Sections 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 47 and 48 of the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act of 1953 and any other provisions relating to the prescription of qualification for practicing in Indian medicine, registration/enrollment of such persons and allied subject be declared illegal and be struck down; (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Rule 3 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 be declared illegal and be struck down; (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents No. 3 and 4 may be directed to delete the names of those persons from their rolls who are not qualified to practice in Indian medicine as per the provisions of the Indian medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and in particular, those persons who have obtained the qualifications of Vaidhya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag after 1967 and also from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad; (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No. 1 may be directed to determine the strength of the members in Central Council from Rajasthan on the basis of those practitioners in the Indian medicine who are qualified to practice under the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970; (v) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents No. 3 and 4 may be directed to delete the names of the persons referred in prayer Clause (iii) above from the electoral rolls to be prepared for the elections to the Council and they may further be directed to restrain these persons from participating in the elections of the Council.” 2. The petitition has arisen in the context of Special Act having been made by the Parliament to govern the field of providing requisite qualification and essentials for practicing Indian medicine defined as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb under Section 2(e) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1970). The petitition has arisen in the context of Special Act having been made by the Parliament to govern the field of providing requisite qualification and essentials for practicing Indian medicine defined as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb under Section 2(e) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1970). As the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916 and the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 (in short the Act of 1956) had been enacted to regulate the medical profession in western or modern medicines which is described as the “Allopathy” in contrast to Indian Medical Science which include Ayurvedic, Ashtang and Unani system of medicine. Homeopathy is still a distinct class. 3. The Act of 1970 was enacted to constitute a statutory Central Council on the lines of Medical Council of India for the proper development of Indian System of Medicine as the Medical Council of India was set up for modern system of medicine. One of the objects for enacting the Act of 1970 was to lay down and regulate the standards of education and examination, qualification and practice in Indian Systems of Medicine. This need was felt on account of varying standard of admission, duration of course of training and details of curricula and syllabi of studies and the title of degree or diploma in different States which were governed by the Legislation made by concerned States Legislatures. The subject of legislation fall in the concurrent list of the 7th Schedule. 4. Under the Act of 1970, the Indian medicine was defined to mean the system of Indian medicine commonly known as Ashtang, Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani Tibb whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the Central Council may declare by notification from time to time for the purposes of regulating medical practice in the Indian medicine. The recognized medical qualifications were also defined in Section 2(h) to mean any of the medical qualifications, including post-graduate medical qualification of Indian medicine included in Second, Third or Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1970. 5. Section 3 of the Act provides for constitution of a Central Council. The recognized medical qualifications were also defined in Section 2(h) to mean any of the medical qualifications, including post-graduate medical qualification of Indian medicine included in Second, Third or Fourth Schedule of the Act of 1970. 5. Section 3 of the Act provides for constitution of a Central Council. It consists firstly under Clause (a) such number of members not exceeding five as may be determined by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule for each of the Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems of medicine from each State in which a State Register of Indian medicine is maintained, to be elected from amongst themselves by persons enrolled on that Register as practitioners of Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani, as the case may be. Under Clause (b), another class of members to be on the Council are; one member for each of the Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems of medicine from each University to be elected from amongst themselves by the members of the Faculty or Department (by whatever name called) by the respective system of medicine of that University and (c) such number of members, not exceeding thirty per cent of the total number of members elected under Clauses (a) and (b), as may be nominated by the Central Government from amongst persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of Indian medicine. 6. This petition concerns primarily about the election of members from State of Rajasthan to the Central Council under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 3(1) of the Act of 1970 to be elected from amongst the persons enrolled on the State Register of Registered Practitioners. 7. While Section 4 provides for mode of election enabling Central Government to conduct the elections of the members of the Central Council, Section 5 of the Act, relevant for the present purposes, provides for the restriction or eligibility of the members to be elected, which reads as under:- “5. Restriction on elections and membership.-(1) No person shall be eligible for election to the Central Council unless he possesses any of the medical qualifications included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule, is enrolled on any State Register of Indian medicine and resides in the State concerned. (2) No person may at the same time serve as a member in more than one capacity.” 8. (2) No person may at the same time serve as a member in more than one capacity.” 8. A perusal of Section 5 shows that it requires three pre-requisites before a person can be considered eligible for election to the Central Council viz. (1) that he should possess any of the medical qualifications included in Second, Third or Fourth Schedule; (2) that he is to be enrolled on any State or Indian medicine and; (3) that he resides in the State concerned. No exemption or alternative to those conditions are envisaged. A person lacking any of these qualifications may not be able to contest the election. 9. So far as the qualification prescribed in Second, Third or Fourth Schedule are concerned, these matters are matters enlisted in the respective schedules and not the subject matter of contention in this case. The bone of contention is about the persons enrolled in the state register of Indian medicine but who does not possess the qualification prescribed in Second, Third, or Fourth Schedule. It consists of two classes those who were enrolled prior to relevant provisions of the Act of 1970 came into force and others enrolled after such date. 10. Key issue raised in this petition and which is also of significance is that whether after the commencement of the Act of 1970 any person who does not hold any of the qualifications included in Second, Third or Fourth Schedule can be enrolled on any State Register of Indian medicine and non resident in the State concerned can be allowed to practice Indian medicine. 11. Chapter III of the Act deals with the recognition of medical qualification and right of persons holding qualification required under the Act to be enrolled in the State register of Indian medicine. 12. Before examining the scheme of Chapter III in detail, it will be apposite to notice that before the promulgation of Act of 1970 by the Parliament, in the State of Rajasthan two enactments were holding the field. One Rajasthan Medicine Act, 1953 and the other Rajasthan Medical Act, 1952. While the Act of 1952 was for achieving the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933, the forerunner of the Indian Medical Act, 1956, the Act of 1953 operated in the field of Indian System of Medicine, surgery or midwifery. Presently, we are concerned with the Act of 1953. 13. While the Act of 1952 was for achieving the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933, the forerunner of the Indian Medical Act, 1956, the Act of 1953 operated in the field of Indian System of Medicine, surgery or midwifery. Presently, we are concerned with the Act of 1953. 13. Under Section 4 of the Act of 1953, a board was established to be known as Board of Indian medicine in Rajasthan and it was entrusted with the task of maintaining a register for Vaidyas or Hakims or midwifery practitioners under Section 31. Section 31 provided that the Board shall maintain in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner (i) a register of Vaidyas, (ii) a register of Hakims, and (iii) a register of Midwives. 14. Each of such register shall be divided into two parts. In the first part there shall be containing the names of Vaidyas, Hakims and Midwives, as the case may be, belonging to class A and the second part containing the names of those belonging to Class B. The “Vaidya” was defined to mean a practitioner of the Ayurvedic system of medicine or surgery under Section 3(xix) of the Act. Hakim under Section 3(v) means a practitioner of the Unani system of medicine or surgery, Midwife under Clause (ix) of Section 3 means a practitioner of the Indian system of midwifery. The “Indian system of medicine” has been defined under Section 3(vi) to mean the Ayurvedic or the Unani Tibbi system of medicine, whether supplemented or not by modern advances. Thus, Act of 1953 operated in the field of Indian medicine consisting of Ayurvedic system of medicine and Unani Tibbi system of surgery apart from the Indian system of midwifery. 15. The schedule to the Act was divided into two parts, Part A and Part B. Part A provided for the requisite qualification for Vaidyas, Hakims or midwives to be entered in part A of the register whereas part B provided for the qualification required to be entered in the Part-B of the register as noticed above. The practitioners as Vaidyas, Hakims or midwives who have passed an examination from any Ayurvedic or Unani Tibbi institution in or outside Rajasthan recognised by the Board for purposes of registration in Part B of the registers. 9.16. The practitioners as Vaidyas, Hakims or midwives who have passed an examination from any Ayurvedic or Unani Tibbi institution in or outside Rajasthan recognised by the Board for purposes of registration in Part B of the registers. 9.16. The Act of 1970 envisaged under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 that it shall come into force on such date as the Central Government by notification in the official gazette, appoint in this behalf for such State, and different dates may be appointed for different States and for different provisions of this Act. According to different notifications issued Sections 2, 13, 32 to 36 (both inclusive) came into force in whole of India and Sections 3, 5 to 12 (both inclusive) and 14 to 16 (both inclusive) came into force in all the States (except State of Nagaland) and in the Union Territory of Delhi on the 15th August, 1971, and the provisions of Sections 18 to 22 (both inclusive) came into force on 010.1974 and Sections 17 and 23 to 31 (both inclusive) came into force on 010.1976 in the whole of India. 10.17. These notifications and the chronology of events show that while provisions relating to Constitution of the Central Council of Indian medicine under the Act alongwith provisions relating to recognition of medical qualifications contained in Chapter 3 from Sections 14 to 16 came into force on 15th August, 1971, within State of Rajasthan, Section 17 concerning the rights of the person possessing the qualification under the Act of 1970 and the persons enrolled on State registers until the extension of those provisions came into force w.e.f. 010.1976. The provision empowering the Central Council to seek information from universities and medical institutions as to courses of studies and examination and appoint inspectors and visitors to visit universities and medical institutions where education and examination in Indian medicine is imparted to regulate recognition of institutions and to provide for minimum standards of education in Indian medicine contained in Sections 18 to 22 were brought into force on 010.1974. 118. The Rules in furtherance of Section 4 of the Act for conducting elections of the Central Council were notified by the Central Government on 6th Sept., 1975 vide notification dated 14.08.1975 after provisions relating to recognition of qualification for the purposes of the Act of 1970 were extended to whole of India on 15th August, 1971. 119. 118. The Rules in furtherance of Section 4 of the Act for conducting elections of the Central Council were notified by the Central Government on 6th Sept., 1975 vide notification dated 14.08.1975 after provisions relating to recognition of qualification for the purposes of the Act of 1970 were extended to whole of India on 15th August, 1971. 119. While Section 14 concerns about the recognition of medical qualification granted by any university, Board or other Medical Institution of India included in the Second Schedule, qualifications which were not recognised in the Second Schedule, but were granted by any medical board, institution or Medical Council in India may apply to the Central Council to have such qualification recognised and if the name of such institution is included in the Second Schedule, the medical qualification granted by such institution shall be recognised medical qualification only after a specified date. Section 15 deals with a qualification granted to any citizen of India before the 15th August, 1947 by any medical institution in any area which was comprised before that date within India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, were also recognized as qualification for the purposes of the Act. Such recognized qualifications included in the Third Schedule. Section 16 deals with qualifications required in Fourth Schedule, namely the qulifications granted by the medical institutions outside India in the matters for which there is a scheme of reciprocity with it. Thus, w.e.f. 1st October, 1974, the qualifications granted by the institutions included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules respectively came to be recognised medical qualifications under the Act w.e.f. 010.1974. .20. Section 17 which came into force w.e.f. 010.1976 and which is centre of the controversy raised in the present case 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 enrollment on any State Register of Indian medicine. 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 enrollment on any State Register of Indian medicine. .(2) Save as provided in Section 28, 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,- .(a) shallhold 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 practice Indian medicine in any State; .(c) shallbe entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by an law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; .(d) shallbe entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in Court of law as an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on any matter relating to Indian medicine. .(3) Nothing contained in Sub-section (2) shall affect- .(a) the right of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian medicine to practice Indian medicine in any State merely on the ground that, on the commencement of this Act, he does not possess a recognized medical qualification; .(b) theprivileges (including the right to practice any system of medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practititioners 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) theright of a person to practice 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 practicing Indian medicine for not less than five years. .(d) therights conferred by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 including the right to practice medicine as defined in Clause (f) of Section 2 of the said Act on persons possessing any qualifications included in the Schedules to the said Act. .(d) therights conferred by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 including the right to practice medicine as defined in Clause (f) of Section 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-section (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. 21. While Sub-section (1) of Section 17 says that subject to any other provisions contained in the Act, the qualification included in Second, Third, or Fourth Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrollment on any State register of Indian medicine, Sub-section (2) is a restrictive provision. It prohibits any person to practice Indian medicines in any State who does not possess a recognized medical qualification and is not enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Indian Mecines. Thus, with the commencement of the Section 17 i.e. From 010.1976 in the State of Rajasthan in the absence of any saving clause, any person will be eligible to practise Indian medicines only on fulfillment of two conditions viz. (i) he holds a recognized medical qualification as per Schedule Second or Third or Fourth, as the case may be, and that (ii) he is also enrolled as such either in State Register or on the Central register of Indian medicine. 22. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 provides such exception to Sub-section (2) and saves the rights and privileges of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian medicine to practice Indian medicine in any State on the commencement of this provision, even if he did not possess a recognised medical qualification referred to above. The Scheme clearly indicated under Sub-section (3) is that the rights and privileges of those persons who had acquired such rights to practise and admitted to certain privileges on the basis of their qualification, prior to the commencement of Section 17 were saved notwithstanding requirement of holding requisite qualification prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 17 is not fulfilled. The scheme appears to be fairly clear. The scheme appears to be fairly clear. Clause (a) of Sub-section (3) saves the rights of a practitioner of Indian medicine who were enrolled on a State Register of Indian medicine to practise Indian medicine in any State as per the qualification prescribed for such enrollment notwithstanding he does not possess the requisite qualification under the Act of 1970. Clause (b) saves the privileges which may include the right to practise in any medicine other than Indian medicine though they have been enrolled in any State register of Indian medicine. In other words, while Clause (a) protects the rights of persons enrolled on a State register of Indian medicine on the commencement of the Act of 1940 (for the present purposes Section 17) to practice Indian medicine, Clause (b) saves privileges of such persons who were practicing Indian medicine and such privileges may be as defined in the respective State Acts and may also include right to practice in any system of medicine other than Indian medicine to practise or prescribe medicines of other discipline by a practitioner registered to practise Indian medicine is not the right flowing from qualification but a privilege attached with a person entitled to practise Indian medicine for that reason alone. 23. Right to practise Indian medicine by the persons enrolled on State Register of Indian medicines flows from Clause (a), Clause (c) saves the right of those practitioners of Indian medicine to continue to practise as such in the 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 practicing Indian medicine for not less than five years. Clause (d) makes it clear that the provisions of Section 17 does not affect the rights conferred under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 which included the right to practise medicine as defined in Clause (f) of Sub-section (2) of said Act. As we shall presently see the Indian Medical Council Act primarily concerned with regulation of modern medicinal science which has been interpreted to be confined to “Allopathy”. 24. As we shall presently see the Indian Medical Council Act primarily concerned with regulation of modern medicinal science which has been interpreted to be confined to “Allopathy”. 24. On the anvil of these provisions, while the petitioner contends that after the commencement of Act of 1970 in Rajasthan so far as election of the member of the Central Council is concerned, any person merely because he is enrolled on the State Register of Indian medicine, does not make him eligible to contest the election but in addition he must hold the qualification prescribed under the Act of 1970 under Schedules Second, Third and Fourth. A person not holding the qualification prescribed under said Schedules is not eligible to contest the election of the Central Council. This is independent of right to practise Indian medicine with privileges attached to it to the extent such right is saved under Section 17(3) of the Act. 25. The second contention raised by the petitioner in this regard is that after the commencement of Section 17, the persons acquiring qualification, though recognized under the State Act of 1953, are not entitled to be enrolled or practice in view of the provisions made under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 17 of the Act of 1970. To the extent, the provisions of the Act of 1953 are repugnant to the Act of 1970, operating on the field covered by the Act of Parliament, it becomes void in view of Article 254 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners vs. Delhi Admn. Director of Health Services & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 67 . 26. The Union of India and the State have supported the petition. The State Government has further come forward with a plea that it has already taken steps to act according to the provision of the Act of 1970. 27. Director of Health Services & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 67 . 26. The Union of India and the State have supported the petition. The State Government has further come forward with a plea that it has already taken steps to act according to the provision of the Act of 1970. 27. The learned Counsel appearing for Ayurveda Vikas Chikitasak Sangh, Jodhpur respondent No. 5, representing the cause of persons who had acquired qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1953 and enrolled on the State Register of Indian medicine of State of Rajasthan but who are not holding qualification as prescribed in Schedule Second, Third or Fourth of the Act of 1970 contends that in view of the Sub-section (3) of Section 17, more particularly, Clause (b), a person who has entered on the roll of State register as per the Act of 1953 becomes entitled to practice Indian medicine and also to participate in election by dint of it being on the State Register. The contention of Mr. Boda, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 is founded on the premise that while Clause (a) and Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) confines the saving clause only to the extent of persons falling in that category on the commencement of the Act, Cluase (b) of Sub-section (3) in its operation of saving from Sub-section (2) is not confined to the date of commencement of Act, 1970. On this premise, it is contended that the qualification in question viz. “Ayurveda Ratna” and “Vaid Visharad” granted by Hindi Sahitya Sammalen, Allahabad was recognised by the State Government until 1993. Therefore, notwithstanding under Schedule II, only such degrees of Hindi Sahitya Sammalen, Allahabad taken by the members of respondent Sangh has been recognised for the purposes of Act of 1970 which has been granted upto 1967, such degrees granted until the issuance of the notification of the State Govt. in 1993 confers right on the candidates to get themselves enrolled and practice Indian medicine in State of Rajasthan in terms of the Act of 1953. The learned Counsel places reliance on Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 468 . 28. in 1993 confers right on the candidates to get themselves enrolled and practice Indian medicine in State of Rajasthan in terms of the Act of 1953. The learned Counsel places reliance on Dr. Mukhtiar Chand & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 468 . 28. As we have noticed above under scheme of Section 17, the Sub-section (3) curves out an exception to the rigour of Sub-section (2) in respect of those persons who does not hold qualification prescribed under the Act of 1970 yet are allowed to practise Indian medicine and enjoy privileges attached with such right. The exception is confined to the date of commencement of the provisions in the respective State and not beyond is obvious from the provision itself . 29. We have noticed that Clause (a) saves the right to practise Indian medicine of those persons who were enrolled on the State Register of Indian medicine at the time of commencement of the provisions which came into effect with effect from 010.1976. Clause (b) saves the privileges of those persons who are enrolled on State register. Privileges do not exist independent of right to practise but are attached to it. The privilege is something which goes with the right to practise Indian medicine for which one is entitled. It is, therefore, of significance that in Clause (b) of Sub-section (3), while referring to the privileges, its meaning has been extended to right to practise “any medicine” and not the right to practise Indian medicine as has been referred to in Clause (a). If the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is accepted that right to practise any system referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) is independent of Clause (a), it would include within it, right to practise Indian medicine also in the expression “any system of medicine” and will make Clause (a) redundant. Such a course which renders any part of the statute redundant cannot be accepted where harmonious construction is possible. 30. Such a course which renders any part of the statute redundant cannot be accepted where harmonious construction is possible. 30. The contention that a person enrolled under Indian Medicine Act, 1953 even after commencement of Act of 1970, which deals with regulation of practice in Indian medicine primarily, will not be entitled to practice Indian medicine because of Sub-section 3(a) read with Sub-section 2(b) of Section 17 but with same qualification he will be allowed to continue to practice other system of medicine because of Sub-section 3(b), also does not commend itself . It does not stand to reason that a qualification which does not make a person eligible to practise the system of medicine to which the Statute relates but because ancillarily one is allowed under same provisions of law to practise other system of medicine. It will be to negate the primary plank of regulating minimum standards of qualifications and training before any one is allowed to enter the field of practicing medicine. Right to practice any medicine which may flow from the Act of 1953 or from any other Act in favour of a person who has already been enrolled on a State register of Indian medicine may emanate not only under the Act of 1953 but under any other statutory provision as it reads:- “the privileges (including the right to practice 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; 2.31. Obviously, the privileges to practise ‘any system of medicine’ can only be referred to a case where a person who otherwise has a right to practise some system of medicine for which he has received specialised training. The privileges are not independent of right to practice such system for which one has been trained. Therefore, Clause (b) has to be read as an adjunct to Clause (a) and not independent of it. 3.32. The privileges of only those persons have been saved who are enrolled on the state Register of Indian medicine and are entitled to practise Indian medicine under Clause (a). The expression “right to practise any medicine” as a privilege is only referable to right to practice other than Indian medicine as a part of the privileges attached with pe