Judgment :- Heard Mr.N.Kalyanasundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Devendran, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Ms.D.Geetha, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the second and third respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner Sangam is a registered Association with Registration No.90/92. It consists of members who had started their career as compounders and nurses and who had worked either under the Government or with private Doctors. They had acquired practical knowledge of diagnosing diseases and in the administration of allopathic medicines. They have undergone a two year full time diploma course in Thilaga Medical Institute, Madurai. Thereafter, they have also undergone practical training for two months, and they had been practising in rural areas, treating patients by administering allopathic medicines. The State of Maharashtra had enacted the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, which allows such persons to practice in allopathic medicines. Referring to the said Act enacted in the State of Maharashtra, the Health Ministry of Government of India in Letter No.V/11016/8/74 MPT, dated 24. 75, had directed the State Governments to enlist unqualified medical practitioners and to initiate legislation in line with the Maharashtra Act. The States of Punjab, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh have enacted legislations in line with the Maharashtra Act. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Central Government, Thilaga Medical Institute, Madurai, had been registered and it had started functioning in the year 1962, conducting regular Courses. Since the Government of Tamilnadu had not enacted any legislation in this regard, the present writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to take appropriate steps to regularise the practice of the members of the petitioner Association, as unqualified medical practitioners practising in modern medicine. 3. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed before this Court, a letter issued by the Government of Tamilnadu, in Lr.(MS) 342 H, dated 3. 80, sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health), Government India, New Delhi, stating that the Government of Tamil Nadu is not in favour of enacting a legislation to regularise the practice of unqualified medical practitioners for various reasons stated therein. 80, sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health), Government India, New Delhi, stating that the Government of Tamil Nadu is not in favour of enacting a legislation to regularise the practice of unqualified medical practitioners for various reasons stated therein. It has been stated that there are adequate number of registered medical practitioners in Modern Medicine, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy in the State of Tamilnadu including, Dentists, Nurses Midwives, Auxiliary Nurses and Midwives, to cater to the medical needs of the people of Tamil nadu. By regularising the practice of unqualified medical practitioners, it may lead to unexpected complications, resulting in the loss of human lives and moreover, it will aggravate the unemployment problem of qualified doctors, in their respective systems of medicine, which is already acute. Further, regularising the practise of unqualified medical practitioners will result in the loss of precious human lives, as it may pose health hazards in general. The petitioners are neither having the prescribed qualifications issued by the recognised University nor registered in their respective Medical Councils. 4. It has also been stated that as per Section 15(2) (b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled in a State Medical Register, shall practice Medicine in any State and therefore, the prayer of the petitioners is contrary to the existing laws. The usage of Allopathic Drugs, except by prescription by a registered medical practitioner, is prohibited as as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Further, this Court had dismissed a number of writ petitions with similar prayers in W.P.Nos.14391 and 14392 of 1998, W.P.No.14624 of 1991 and W.P.No.1598 of 2000. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents had also placed before this Court a decision of the Supreme Court, made in Civil Appeal No.336 of 2007, (Private Medical Practitioners Association Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Others), wherein, it has been held that there should be a legal right vested in the petitioner for the Courts of law to issue a writ of Mandamus. In the absence of any legal right, such a writ cannot be sought for, or granted by the Courts. The State of Tamilnadu and Others), wherein, it has been held that there should be a legal right vested in the petitioner for the Courts of law to issue a writ of Mandamus. In the absence of any legal right, such a writ cannot be sought for, or granted by the Courts. Since the members of the appellant Association were not qualified and registered with the State Medical Council, they cannot be permitted to practice, either in Modern Medicine or in any other System of Medicine. As per the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, no person can practice medicine without the requisite qualifications and registration with the concerned State Medical Council. If unqualified private practitioners are allowed to treat the patients, even for minor ailments, it may endanger the lives of the people. Since the Circular issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health), Government India, New Delhi, does not have any statutory or binding force on the State Government, the State Government is not liable to implement the same by permitting the unqualified members of the petitioner Association to practice in Modern Medicine, subject to the limitations contained in the Letter Ref.No.V.11016/3/82/ME(P), dated 15. 86. Since successive writ petitions had been filed by the appellant, the Supreme Court had dismissed the Civil Appeal with costs, which was quantified at Rs.50,000/-. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the decisions cited before this Court, it is clear that the members of the petitioner Association have no right to practice in Modern Medicine or any other System of Medicine. Further, as per Section 15(2)(b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled in a State Medical Register shall practice Medicine in any State. 7. It is also seen that the Government of Tamilnadu had taken a policy decision not to regularise the practice of unqualified medical practitioners, considering the public welfare and in view of the fact that adequate number of registered medical practitioners in Modern Medicine, Indian Medicine, Homeopathy, etc., are available to cater to the needs of the public. Regulating the practice of unqualified medical practitioners would result in the loss of precious human lives and it will also pose various health hazards. Regulating the practice of unqualified medical practitioners would result in the loss of precious human lives and it will also pose various health hazards. Unless the members of the petitioner Association are possessing the required qualifications, as prescribed by the recognised University and unless they are registered in their respective Medical Councils they cannot be permitted to practice. 8. It is also noted that the Government of Tamilnadu had informed the Government of India, vide its Letter (MS) 342 Health, dated 3. 80, sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health), Government India, New Delhi, that it is not in favour of enacting a legislation to regularise the practice of unqualified Medical Practitioners. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.