Govind Mathur, J.—The Delhi High Court instructed the Government of India to consider making legislation for grant of licenses to the existing and new institutes to control and regulate the various unrecognized streams of alternative medicines. The Government of India constituted a standing committee of 16 experts under the chairmanship of Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research and members drawn from various fields of medicine to recommend on the efficiency of various streams of alternative medicines. The committee studied the systems for five years and submitted its report, that was accepted by the Ministry of Health and family Welfare. Under an order dt. 25.11.2003, the Committee scrutinized Electropathy, Electrohomeopathy, Magnetotherapy, Reici, Reflexology, Urine Therapy, Auto Urine Therapy, Aromatherapy, Color Therapy, Pranic Healing, Gems and Stone Therapy, Music Therapy. To justify the scientific nature of alternative system, the committee set certain conditions and those are: 1. Alternative system of Medicine must be a well established methods. 2. The system must be prevalent with widespread network of practitioners. 3. The system should have its own fundamental principles of health and disease with comprehensive health care without any restriction on diseases. 4. Substantial literature on concepts, etiology, diagnosis and management of diseases including pharmacopoeia, formularies and journals should be available. 5. In the country of origin of the system, it should be recognized officially. 6. Standardized methods of preparation of drugs, devices used in the therapy, and quality control procedures should be available. Details of continuing medical education programmes and available research facilities must be available, including Infrastructure, teaching methods, examination system, course of curriculum, texts,practical training programmes. 2. After thoroughly examining the criteria set for the scrutiny, the experts rejected the claims of alternative medicines and did not recommend recognition to any of these alternative medicines. The committee suggested that all those systems of medicine should not be allowed to continue full time Bachelor’s or Master’s Degree Courses, and the term “Doctor” to be used by the practitioners of recognized system of medication only. The expert committee also stated that electropathy and electrohomeopathy are not recognized even in the origin of the country i.e. italy or anywhere in the world and Electrohomeopathy used the guise of Homeopathy though both are not the same. 3. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dt. The expert committee also stated that electropathy and electrohomeopathy are not recognized even in the origin of the country i.e. italy or anywhere in the world and Electrohomeopathy used the guise of Homeopathy though both are not the same. 3. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dt. 25.11.2003 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Research Task) accepting the recommendation made by the Committee by the petitioner i.e. an Institute of Electropathy imparting Electropathy education and training for BEMS Course at Banswara The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to recognize electropathy as alternative system of medication. It is asserted by counsel for the petitioner that various High Courts have given directions to the Government of India and other competent authorities to recognize electropathy as alternative medicine and also for using the term “Doctor” for its practitioners. 4. I have gone through all the judgments referred by the petitioner, copies whereof are placed on record. As a matter of fact, the directions given by the Courts in various cases is only with regard to examine claim of electrotherapy as alternative medicine. The claim aforesaid has already been examined by the competent committee, reference of which is given in preceding paras and the committee has negativated the claim. The committee that examined claim of electropathy was an expert committee and I do not find any just reason to interfere with the recommendations made by an expert committee. 5. As such, this petition for writ fails, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, it shall be open for the petitioners to re-agitate its claim before the competent authorities. The competent authorities on basis of the scientific criteria adopted may examine claim of the petitioner. * * * * *