JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, Ved Prakash Tyagi, an Ayurvedic Chikitsak, has preferred this writ petition for challenging the legality and propriety of Chapter IV of the Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan Regulations 1998, with a prayer to strike down the same. Besides the said relief, the petitioner has also implored for quashment of notice dated 5th of June 2006 (Annex.10), order dated 11th of July, 2006 (Annex.8) and order dated 13th of July 2006 (Annex.3) with the consequential relief of a direction to the respondents to renew the registration of the petitioner as Ayurvedic Chikitsak with all consequential benefits. 2. Bare minimal facts for claiming aforementioned reliefs, as set out in the writ petition, are that the petitioner has to his credit, degree of Ayurvedacharya in BAMS from University of Rajasthan, which he has acquired in the year 1978. After acquiring the requisite qualification, the petitioner applied for registration with the Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, 'the Board') under the provisions of Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act 1953 (for short, 'Act of 1953'). On completion of requisite formalities, registration was accorded to the petitioner on 11th of March 1980. After his registration aforesaid, the petitioner was recruited as Ayurvedic Chikitsak in the year 1984 by the Government of Rajasthan. In the year 1994, the petitioner contested the election of Central Council of Indian Medicine and was elected as its member. The said status he enjoyed until the order impugned came into offing. The petitioner has very specifically pleaded in his writ petition that some of the Ayurvedic Chikitsaks practicing in Rajasthan were not possessing the requisite qualification, therefore, he preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 733 of 2000 and sought direction against the Board to delete names of those individuals, who were having to their credit qualification of Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna from Hindu Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, which was obtained by them after 1967. The writ petition was ultimately allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 6th of January 2005. The cause espoused by the petitioner in the said petition and its subsequent affirmative outcome, had many repercussions and large number of unqualified Ayurvedic Chikitsaks became inimical to the petitioner so as to oust him from the profession. The writ petition was ultimately allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 6th of January 2005. The cause espoused by the petitioner in the said petition and its subsequent affirmative outcome, had many repercussions and large number of unqualified Ayurvedic Chikitsaks became inimical to the petitioner so as to oust him from the profession. For substantiating this positive assertion, the petitioner has placed on record order dated 13th of July 2006, whereby he was conveyed that his membership from Central Council of Indian Medicine has come to an end for the reason that his name has been removed from the State Register of Indian Medicine. Immediately on receipt of the said communication, the petitioner submitted a representation before the second respondent on 15th of July 2006 ventilating his grievances that how and in what manner without any notice or order his name has been deleted from the State Register of Indian Medicine. In his representation, the petitioner has also desired the copies of the requisite orders in this behalf. The representation of the petitioner was not acknowledged by the second respondent but on inquiries from its office, a Senior Clerk conveyed him that his registration has been canceled for want of renewal. When the said information was divulged by the Senior Clerk, the petitioner submitted yet another representation on 16th of July 2006 and also submitted draft with three photographs under protest for renewal of his registration. 3. As per the positive assertion of the petitioner, he continued his pursuit, and in this regard submitted a representation on 18th of July 2006. On 17th of July 2006, he made endeavor by sending a FAX Message that he has not been supplied copy of order or copy of notice. Thereupon, the third respondent informed him by a communication dated 17th of July 2006 that for the purpose of registration he is required to contact the second respondent. Along with the said communication, copy of letter dated 13th of July 2006 was also enclosed. From the recitals contained in communication dated 17th of July 2006, it was revealed that notice issued to him for renewal of registration was published in the newspaper, and a copy of the same was also sent to him at his residential address of Jaipur. From the recitals contained in communication dated 17th of July 2006, it was revealed that notice issued to him for renewal of registration was published in the newspaper, and a copy of the same was also sent to him at his residential address of Jaipur. In the same breath, by the aforesaid communication, the request of the petitioner, that he is having permanent registration, which requires no renewal, was turned down. The petitioner has also asserted in the petition that in fact no registered letter was sent to him at his Jaipur address before cancellation of his registration. 4. Adverting to the province of law governing the registration, the petitioner has referred to Sections 31 & 32 of the Act of 1953, which deal with maintaining the registers and persons entitled to be registered. The petitioner has also referred to Section 42 of the Act of 1953 prescribing power of Board to prohibit entry, or direct removal from register or list. As per Scheme of the Act of 1953, Section 48 empowers the Board to frame regulations. While exercising powers conferred under Section 48 of the Act of 1953, the Board framed regulations in the year 1964 and 1974 respectively, but those regulations were reframed in the year 1998 under the nomenclature "Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan Regulations 1998" (for short, 'Regulations of 1998'). Chapter IV of the Regulations of 1998 deals with renewal of registration. Assailing the Regulations of 1998, the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that Section 48 of the Act of 1953 does not authorise the Board to frame any regulation for providing renewal of registration. Categorizing the regulations as subordinate piece of legislation, the petitioner has specifically averred in the petition that they cannot be enforced with retrospective effect and the registration accorded to someone before enactment of the Regulations of 1998 shall not be governed by these Regulations for the purposes of so called renewal of registration. In alternative, the petitioner has also assailed the action of the respondents on the ground that notice dated 5th of June 2006, pursuant to which impugned action was taken against him was never served on him. In alternative, the petitioner has also assailed the action of the respondents on the ground that notice dated 5th of June 2006, pursuant to which impugned action was taken against him was never served on him. While referring to the general notification, which was published in newspaper, the petitioner has taken a specific plea that he remained under the bonafide impression that this notification refers to only those individuals who are having to their credit registration of a specific duration and the said notification is not applicable vis-a-vis him, whose original registration is not stipulating limited duration. Categorizing the impugned action of the respondents as malafide and colourable exercise of power, the petitioner has alleged in the writ petition that impugned action is fall out of his initiating proceedings against some of the individuals who were having no valid qualification to be registered as Ayurvedic Chikitsaks. For substantiating this plea, the petitioner has also pleaded in the writ petition that in the matter of renewal of registration, the respondents have adopted a policy of pick and choose inasmuch as more than nine thousand persons registered under the Act of 1953 have not applied for renewal of their registration as per his information. The whole thrust of the petitioner is that in the guise of renewal of registration, the respondents have acted to his detriment just to oust him from the Central Council solely for the reason that he has espoused a public cause. To meet the objection of availability of alternative remedy under sub-section (5) of Section 32 of the Act of 1953, which provides for appeal, the petitioner has submitted in the writ petition that the same cannot come in his way for the reason that he has questioned the validity of Regulations of 1998. 5. The writ petition of the petitioner is contested by the respondents, and on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 3 separate replies are submitted. 6. The second respondent, in its reply, defended the impugned action and while referring to Section 48 of the Act of 1953 has submitted in the reply that the Board is empowered to frame the Regulations. The writ petition of the petitioner is contested by the respondents, and on behalf of respondent No. 2 & 3 separate replies are submitted. 6. The second respondent, in its reply, defended the impugned action and while referring to Section 48 of the Act of 1953 has submitted in the reply that the Board is empowered to frame the Regulations. Emphasising the requirement for envisaging provision for renewal of registration, in the return, the respondent has averred that the provision has been incorporated with loudable objects with a view to ensure that the qualified persons are regularly practicing or not, and to maintain high standards in the professional capabilities by maintaining continuity. While referring to notice dated 5th of June 2006, it is averred in the reply that the said notice was served on the petitioner but despite that he has not applied for renewal of his registration and that has warranted the impugned action. Taking a dig at the conduct of the petitioner that even after publication of notice in newspaper, he has not chosen to apply for renewal; his grievance against the impugned action is not tenable. Letters and communications addressed to the petitioner on 2nd of December 2005 and 6th of March 2006, issued by the District Ayurved Officer, Jodhpur, under whom the petitioner was working, were also placed on record to substantiate this assertion that notices were served on the petitioner. 7. In terms of the tenor of reply of the second respondent, it is clearly evident that the second respondent has blamed the petitioner for his lapses in not applying for renewal of his registration. As per the clear stand of the second respondent, despite having knowledge about the requirement of renewal of registration, the petitioner has not chosen to apply and that is sufficient to conclude that he was not interested to continue the practice as Ayurvedic Chikitsak. Defending the action of cancellation of registration of the petitioner, the second respondent has submitted in the reply that a notice was sent at his residential address of Jaipur on 13th of June 2006, and thereafter while resorting to Regulation 56 of the Regulations of 1998 his registration was canceled. The provision for renewal of registration was also defended by the second respondent on the anvil of analogous provision under the Chartered Accountants Act 1949, Dentists Act 1948, and also under the Pharmacy Act. The provision for renewal of registration was also defended by the second respondent on the anvil of analogous provision under the Chartered Accountants Act 1949, Dentists Act 1948, and also under the Pharmacy Act. The second respondent has also referred to Regulations of 1964 by asserting that under those regulations also there was provision for renewal of registration. The insinuations hurled by the petitioner that action of the second respondent is malafide and colourable exercise of power, the respondent No. 2 while refuting the same has pleaded in the writ petition that impugned action was taken against him in adherence of the Regulations of 1998. Plea of availability of alternative remedy of appeal under sub-section (5) of Section 32 the Act of 1953 was also incorporated in the reply. 8. The third respondent, in its separate reply, has, at the threshold, outlined the purpose of constitution of Central Council under Section 3 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act 1970. Apart from it, the salient features of Central Council were also highlighted in the reply with material particulars about holding of elections for President, Vice-President, or the Members. Responding to the factual aspects of the matter, the third respondent has referred to Section 24 of the IMCC Act, and submitted that State Board, or Council, for the purpose of updating the State Register, is duty bound to inform the Central Council without any delay regarding all additions and other amendments in the State Register of Indian Medicine made from time to time. As regards cancellation of the Membership of the petitioner from Central Council, the third respondent has submitted in the reply that he is automatically ceased to be a Member of Central Council w.e.f. 10th of July 2006 in terms of sub[ 11] section (2) of Section 7 of the IMCC Act 1970 founded on the letter dated 11th of July 2006 of the Board. 9. The writ petition for the first time came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 28th of July 2006 and the learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the second respondent, admitted the writ petition and granted interim protection to the petitioner. The Court made following order on 28th of July 2006: "Admit. Issue notice. Shri S.K. Vyas, Government Advocate has entered caveat on behalf of the respondent Nos. The Court made following order on 28th of July 2006: "Admit. Issue notice. Shri S.K. Vyas, Government Advocate has entered caveat on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, no need to issue notices to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Let the notices be issued to the respondent No. 3. In the meanwhile and until further orders, operation and effect of the notice dated 05.06.2006 (Annexure 10), order dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure 8) passed by the Registrar, Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan, Jaipur and the communication dated 13.07.2006 (Annexure 3) passed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi shall remain stayed." 10. The interim order granted by the Court was subsequently confirmed until the decision of the writ petition on 20th of January 2012. On 6th of February 2013, when the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, the counsel for the petitioner stated that as the validity of Regulations is under challenge, the petition is required to be heard by the Division Bench and accordingly the matter was placed before the Division Bench. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, at the outset, has argued that the Regulations of 1998 are repugnant to the Act of 1953, and therefore, they are per-se invalid and ultra-vires. Mr. Singhvi would contend that Regulations of 1998 are subordinate piece of legislation, and the source of these regulations is Section 48 of the Act of 1953, and as there is no provision for renewal of registration under the Act of 1953, the Regulations are dehors the parent Act, and therefore, liable to be declared ultra-vires and struck down. In the alternative, Mr. Singhvi has submitted that even if it is presumed that the Regulations are valid piece of subordinate legislation then too such regulations cannot be enforced from retrospective effect so as to insist for renewal of registration for Ayurvedic Chikitsaks, who were registered before coming into force of these Regulations. Mr. Singhvi has argued that at the threshold the petitioner was granted registration as Ayurvedic Chikitsak under the Act of 1953 without specifying duration of registration, the Regulations of 1998 cannot be pressed into service vis-a-vis him for cancellation of his registration. 12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mr. Singhvi has argued that at the threshold the petitioner was granted registration as Ayurvedic Chikitsak under the Act of 1953 without specifying duration of registration, the Regulations of 1998 cannot be pressed into service vis-a-vis him for cancellation of his registration. 12. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Singhvi has argued that a similar controversy arose before Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein Rule 4 & 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Homeopathy Council (Publication of Register and Appeal) Rules 2000 were under challenge on the anvil that these Rules are violative of the provisions contained in Section 21, 22 and 26 read with Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Homeopathy Parishad Adhiniyam 1976 and are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court after considering the matter threadbare declared Rule 4 & 5 ultra-vires. The Division Bench of Madha Pradesh High Court made following observations: 9. If the aforesaid Sections and the impugned rules 4 and 5 are kept in juxtaposition and tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid exposition of law, there remains no iota of doubt that the impugned rules are nothing but an encroachment on the main statute regarding registration and removal of the name of Homeopathy Practitioners. The impugned rules 4 and 5 which have introduced under a delegated legislation has created an unwarranted situation which is beyond its competence beyond the scope of the principal Act. 13. Placing heavy reliance on the verdict of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Singhvi would urge that in the present case also, the impugned regulations, i.e. Regulations of 1998, are contrary to parent Act of 1953, and therefore, applying the ratio decidendi of the aforementioned judgment, the Regulations are liable to be declared ultra vires. 14. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the cause espoused by the petitioner for deleting the names of certain Ayurvedic Chikitsaks practicing in Rajasthan, who are not possessing the requisite qualification, was entertained by the Division Bench of this Court, and its outcome was affirmative in the form of verdict of the Division Bench dated 6th of January 2005 (Annex.2). He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also found that restriction on unqualified doctors to practice is reasonable restriction within the four corners of Article 19(1)(g), 6 and 21 of the Constitution of India in case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidhya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 609 : AIR 2010 SC 2221 , Paras 23 to 26 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said verdict has held that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad/Prayag are only registered societies and not educational institutions, which are authorised to impart education in medical sciences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court made following observations in Para 30 to 33: 30. In Uma Kant Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2003 All LJ 2579 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has considered the issue at length and came to the conclusion that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad/Prayag were only registered societies and not educational institutions. The said Societies had no business to impart education in medical sciences. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was a fake institution whereas Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was recognised only from 1931 to 1967. 31. In Vijai Kumar Gupta (Dr.) v. State of U.P., 1999 All LJ 1756 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a degree/certificate/diploma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag acquired after 1967 was not recognised and those who obtained the same subsequent to 1967 were not entitled to practise medicine. 32. In Vijay Kumar Gupta (Dr.) v. State of U.P., 1999 All LJ 1756 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered the matter at length along with statutory provisions of the 1970 Act and came to the conclusion that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad had never been empowered to issue such certificates/degrees. However, certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag were recognised during the period of 1931 to 1967. Thus, any such certificate subsequent thereto could not entitle a person to practise medicine. 33. In Virendralal B. Vaishya v. Union of India, 2003 Lab IC 2820 (Bom) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was not a recognised university/board and thus could not award degree, diploma or certificate. Thus, any such certificate subsequent thereto could not entitle a person to practise medicine. 33. In Virendralal B. Vaishya v. Union of India, 2003 Lab IC 2820 (Bom) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag was not a recognised university/board and thus could not award degree, diploma or certificate. In Charan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 All 373 the Allahabad High Court considered the issue of validity of certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag and came to the conclusion that the said institution had absolutely no authority to confer any degree or diploma of "Vaidya Visharad" and "Ayurved Ratna" after 1967 and any person who has acquired such certificate after 1967 was not entitled to practise at all. 15. While examining the right of an individual to practice medicine on the anvil of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Apex Court made following observations in Para 48, 51(ix) and 51(x), which read a under: 48. In view of the above, it is evident that the right to practise under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution is not absolute. By virtue of the provisions of clause (6) to Article 19 reasonable restrictions can be imposed. The Court has a duty to strike a balance between the right of a Vaidya to practise, particularly, when he does not possess the requisite qualification and the right of a "little Indian" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution which includes the protection and safeguarding the health and life of the public at large from malmedical treatment. An unqualified, unregistered and unauthorised medical practitioner possessing no valid qualification, degree or diploma cannot be permitted to exploit the poor Indians on the basis of a certificate granted by an institution without any enrolment of students or imparting any education or having any affiliation or recognition and that too without knowing the basic qualification of the candidates. 51. (IX) The right to practise under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. (X) Restriction on practise without possessing the requisite qualifications prescribed in Schedules II, III and IV to the 1970 Act is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act. 16. (X) Restriction on practise without possessing the requisite qualifications prescribed in Schedules II, III and IV to the 1970 Act is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act. 16. The whole endeavor of the learned Senior Counsel for buttressing his submissions in this behalf is that a just cause espoused by the petitioner for debarring the quacks or those Ayurvedic Chikitsaks, who were not having valid degree, was not taken in right spirit sportily by the second respondent and that is precisely the cause for cancellation of registration of the petitioner. Thus, according to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the action is per-se malafide, inimical and a glaring example of colourable exercise of power, which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on an order dated 29th of June 2011, which was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on his petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1435 of 2008 while dismissing the said writ petition of the petitioner as infructuous. In the said petition, the petitioner requested that his name may be deleted from the voter-list of Ayurvedic Chikitsaks of State of Rajasthan as he is seeking his transfer to State of Uttrakhand. Mr. Singhvi has argued that he has submitted before the learned Single Judge that the second respondent is not prepared to delete his name from the list of Ayurvedic Chikitsaks in the State of Rajasthan for the simple reason that he has not succumbed to its pressure for withdrawing the present petition from this Court, and thereupon, the learned Single Judge made following observations: "Learned Senior Counsel however states that respondent No. 3 - the Rajasthan Board of Indian Medicine does not appear to have deleted the name of the petitioner from the list of 'Ayurvedic Chikitshaks' in the State of Rajasthan and has required the petitioner to withdraw a certain writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 3875/2006 pending before this Hon'ble Court as a pre-condition. Learned counsel Mr. Learned counsel Mr. S.K. Vyas, who represents respondent No. 3 - the Rajasthan Board of Indian Medicine, on instructions has stated that the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the list of registered 'Ayurvedic Chikitshaks' in the State of Rajasthan and all formalities required under law for effecting the transfer of the petitioner as a registered 'Ayurvedic Chikitshak' from the State of Rajasthan to the State of Uttrakhand shall be completed within a period of six weeks. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no need to adjudicate the issues raised in the writ petition or pending IAs. The writ petition has in the facts stated at bar become infructuous and is dismissed as such. Needless to say, interim order/s passed in the present writ petition still cease to be operative." 18. Relying on the above quoted observations of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Singhvi would contend that the second respondent cannot be permitted to resile from its concession, which it has made before this Court that the petitioner shall continue to remain registered as Ayurvedic Chikitsak in the State of Rajasthan till he is registered as Ayurvedic Chikitsak in the State of Uttrakhand. Mr. Singhvi has submitted that second respondent cannot be permitted to disown its stand and in view of observations made in the order dated 29th of June 2011, there is absolutely no justification to sustain the impugned action of the respondents. 19. Lastly, Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, has argued that even otherwise before taking impugned action against the petitioner, no proper notice or communication was sent to the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned action is not sustainable as the same is in clear violation of the Regulations of 1998 and the principles of audi-alteram-partem. 20. Per contra, Mr. R.L. Jangid, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that since the petitioner has already been registered as Ayuruvedic Chikitsak with the State of Uttrakhand, now there is no cause of grievance available to him against the respondents and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous. Mr. Jangid would urge that petitioner himself has sent a communication to the President, Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi, on 8th of July 2011 that as he has shifted to Uttrakhand and has settled over there, Central Register of Indian Medicine and other records be amended accordingly. Mr. Jangid would urge that petitioner himself has sent a communication to the President, Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi, on 8th of July 2011 that as he has shifted to Uttrakhand and has settled over there, Central Register of Indian Medicine and other records be amended accordingly. Placing heavy reliance on the said communication of the petitioner, Mr. Jangid submits that now in the changed scenario the lis involved in the matter no more survives and has lost its significance for all practical purposes and as such no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner. Mr. Jangid has also invited attention of this Court towards notification issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi dated 9th of August 2011, wherein the recitals are clear that name of the petitioner has been struck off from the State Register of Indian Medicine by the Registrar, Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan, vide order dated 27th of June 2011. The complete text of Notification is as under: LokLF; vkSj ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky; vk;qosZn] ;ksx o izkd`frd fpfdRlk] ;wukuh] fl) ,oa gksE;ksiSFkh foHkkx vf/klwpuk ubZ fnYyh] 9 vxLr] 2011 dk0vk0 1850 ( v ) & tcfd Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk dsanzh; ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1970 ( blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e ds :i esa mfYyf[kr ) dh /kkjk 3 dh mi&/kkjk ( 1 ) ds [kaM ( d ) ds vuqlj.k esa] Jh osn izdk'k R;kxh] ih0 jkenokl dyku] ok;k&ihij jksM+] ftyk tks/kiqj] jktLFkku dks vk;qosZn] fl) vFkok ;wukuh ds fpfdRldksa ds :i esa Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk jkT; iaftdk esa ntZ O;fDr;ksa }kjk vk;qosZn fpfdRlk i)fr gsrq Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk dsanzh; ifj"kn~ ds :i esa fuokZfpr fd;k x;k FkkA tcfd Jh osn izdk'k R;kxh dk uke jftLV~kj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk cksMZ] jktLFkku ds vkns'k la[;k 14839 fnukad 27&06&2011 }kjk Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk jkT; iaftdk ls gVk fn;k x;k gSA vr,o] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 7 dh mi&/kkjk ( 2 ) ds vuqlj.k esa] ;g le>k tkrk gS fd Jh osn izdk'k R;kxh us 27&06&2011 ls] tcls Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk jkT; iaftdk] jktLFkku ls mudk uke gVk fn;k x;k gS] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk dsUnzh; ifj"kn~ esa viuh lhV [kkyh dj nh gSA ( Qk0la0& ,0 11019@30@2011& vkjMh&lhlhvkbZ,e fuokZpu ) ih0fot; dqekj] mi&lfpo " 21. Mr. Mr. Jangid would contend that the petitioner himself has volunteered for transferring his registration from Rajasthan to Uttrakhand and at present he is registered with the State of Uttrakhand, there is apparently no subsistence of his valid grievance against the impugned action of the respondents requiring adjudication by this Court. While referring to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29th of June 2011, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the observations made by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition as having become infructuous, cannot come to the rescue of the cause of the petitioner and the said order cannot be utilised by the petitioner to his advantage. While arguing, the learned Additional Advocate General has tried to impress upon this Court that the concession made by the respondent at the time of passing of the order dated 29th of June 2011 has no nexus whatsoever with the lis involved in the present petition. The whole thrust of the argument of Mr. Jangid is that concession recorded in the order dated 29th of June 2011 cannot roll back the clock so as to treat the petitioner as a registered Ayurvedic Chikitsak until his name was transferred/registered with the State of Uttrakhand. To sum up the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General, the concession made earlier on behalf of the respondent dehors the Regulations of 1998 is not worth reliance, or the same is eschewable. Mr. Jangid has also countered all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner questioning the validity of the Regulations of 1998 and has submitted that the Regulations are perfectly valid and they are framed in consonance and in conformity with Section 48 of the Act of 1953, as such, are liable to be upheld. 22. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 23. At the outset, we are not inclined to examine the validity of the Regulations of 1998 though the rival parties have made endeavor to address on the issue vociferously. We refrain from adjudicating this issue for the reason that the lis involved in the matter can be adjudicated while examining the controversy otherwise in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, we are leaving the question of validity of the Regulations of 1998 open. 24. We refrain from adjudicating this issue for the reason that the lis involved in the matter can be adjudicated while examining the controversy otherwise in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, we are leaving the question of validity of the Regulations of 1998 open. 24. Upon hearing the rival contentions and examining the matter on the touchstone of factual background of the case, we feel that a very trivial issue has been blown out of proportion by making mountain out of molehill. The affliction of the petitioner in the present case lies in a very narrow compass for the simple reason that since 2011 he has shifted his permanent abode to State of Uttrakhand and has been registered as Ayurvedic Chikitsak with that State. Genesis of this litigation appears to be an endeavor at the behest of petitioner to keep his status intact as Ayurvedic Chikitsak in State of Rajasthan until his name registered as such with the State of Uttrakhand so that during the evening phase of his life, he may not experience the stigma of cancellation/interruption of his registration by the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, for the interregnum period, which has occasioned due to the impugned action of the respondents. 25. On objective analysis of the factual matrix of the instant case, there is no cogent adverse material available on record to discredit the credentials of the petitioner as Ayurvedic Chikitsak during the period he was registered with the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan. A vital fact that he was seriously concerned about public health and that is why he launched litigation for deleting the names of unqualified Ayurvedic Chikitsaks from the Register of the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and has succeeded in that pious mission cannot be overlooked while examining the lis involved in the matter. That apart, a glance at Notice dated 22nd of March 2006, which was issued by the Board to the petitioner, makes it abundantly clear that said notice has not been properly addressed to the petitioner inasmuch as it was simply addressed to V.P. Tyagi son of Dharampal Tyagi and no postal address has been mentioned. As a matter of fact, the entire impugned action of the respondents is founded on the said notice and the same was not properly addressed so as to apprise the petitioner about the proposed action. As a matter of fact, the entire impugned action of the respondents is founded on the said notice and the same was not properly addressed so as to apprise the petitioner about the proposed action. In this view of the matter, we feel inclined to hold that impugned action of the respondents is vitiated as the same is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. If the impugned action of the respondents is tested on the touchstone of Regulation 55 of the Regulations of 1998, then it will ipso facto reveal that the same is in clear negation of the mandate of Regulation 55. Regulation 55 is reproduced as under: " 55- mDr vof/k ds mijkUr Hkh okafNr fjU;woy vkosnu izkIr u gksus dh n'kk esa lEcU/k leH;klh dks ,d jftLVMZ ,0Mh0 uksfVl i= visf{kr vkosnu QkeZ lfgr Hkstk tkosxk] ftlesa ;s vafdr gksxk fd ,rn~ uksfVl i= izs"k.k frfFk ls 15 fnu ds vUnj&vUnj vfrfjDr fu/kkZfjr foyEc 'kqYd lfgr fjU;qoy vkosnu cksMZ dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djsa] vU;Fkk mldk uke lEc) iaftdk ls mldks fcuk dksbZ vfxze lwpuk fn, gVk fn;k tkosxkA " 26. Dealing with contention of the learned counsel for the respondents to disown the concession made, when earlier writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1435 of 2008) was dismissed as infructuous on the anvil of temper of Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the 1998, we feel it to be quite alluring but are not impressed by this contention to discredit the concession so made by the respondents. Our view also finds support from Regulation 55 of the Regulations of 1998, which has not been followed by the respondents for taking impugned action against the petitioner in letter and spirit. There is yet another reason for not acceding to this contention of the respondents as in our considered opinion the concession so made has persuaded the petitioner to get his petition dismissed as infructuous. It is settled law that any concession made by a counsel on behalf of a litigant is binding on him and if relying on the same Court has passed a verdict the same cannot be subsequently withdrawn to neutralise the said verdict. This sort of awkward situation may not be congenial for fair administration of justice eventually resulting in multiplicity and complexity of litigation. This sort of awkward situation may not be congenial for fair administration of justice eventually resulting in multiplicity and complexity of litigation. Thus, we are not inclined to accept this argument of the respondents and the same is accordingly overruled. 27. One important aspect, having its ramification on the subject matter, is the interim protection granted to the petitioner in this matter at the threshold against the impugned order. The subsistence of the said interim protection coupled with our conclusion that the impugned action is ex-facie dehors Regulation 55 of the Regulations of 1998 has made the decks clear for making the interim order absolute in order to do substantial justice in the matter. We may clarify here that the said observation is made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case without prejudice to the rights of the respondents in any manner. 28. The net result of the above discussion is that the present writ petition deserves acceptance and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned notice Annex.10, order Annex.8 and Annex.3 are quashed and set aside, and the petitioner is declared as registered Ayurvedic Chikitsak with the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan till he was accorded registration with the State of Uttrakhand. 29. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******