JUDGMENT 1. - The matter came up today for consideration of service of notice on the respondent issued by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13th February, 2014. As per office report, notices have not returned back after service and are still awaited. 2. Although, it was not desirable for this Court to examine the subject-matter of the case, at this stage, but, while considering the afflictions of the petitioner, it was revealed that the degrees of "Ayurved Ratna" and "Vaidya Visharad" obtained by the petitioner from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag are, prima facie, spurious and under serious cloud. In that background, the matter was examined on merits and the counsel for the petitioner was called upon to address on merits of the case. 3. Learned counsel, on being queried by the Court, has submitted that degree of "Ayurved Ratna" was awarded to the petitioner by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag on 3rd May, 1975 and before that he has obtained degree of "Vaidya Visharad" from the same institution in the year 1973. Learned counsel has further submitted that considering his academic qualifications, Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan accorded him registration on 14th April, 1976 vide annexure-2 and vide annexure-3, the registration has been renewed upto 21st October, 2012. He further submits that thereafter abruptly, vide order dated 29th of November, 2013 (Annex.5), registration of the petitioner is cancelled. Assailing the order of cancellation of petitioners registration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that before cancellation of his registration, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and, as such, the order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Ripudaman Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also submitted that although he sent the requisite fee for renewal of his registration but the same has not been accepted by the respondents and consequential order has not been issued. Mr. Rajpurohit would contend that the petitioner is possessing the requisite qualifications to practice in Medicine as Ayurveda Chikitsak, and therefore, the impugned action is absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the averments contained in the writ petition and the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. Mr. Rajpurohit would contend that the petitioner is possessing the requisite qualifications to practice in Medicine as Ayurveda Chikitsak, and therefore, the impugned action is absolutely arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the averments contained in the writ petition and the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. The main issue, which has cropped up in the instant case, requiring judicial scrutiny is the qualification of the petitioner viz., Ayurved Ratna and Vaidya Visharad, which he has obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag. The concern of the Court is to ascertain whether these qualifications are recognised qualifications in Schedule-II to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short, the Act of 1970) giving right to an individual to practice in medical sciences. 6. The issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.733/2000 (Ved Prakash Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors.) . The Division Bench, while examining Rajasthan Medicine Act, 1953 (for short, the Act of 1953) vis-a-vis the Central Act i.e., the Act of 1970, has held that any qualification prescribed under the Act of 1953 to the extent it is repugnant the Act of 1970 cannot confer any person a right to practice or seek enrollment on the State Register of Indian Medicine. The Division Bench has further held that degrees conferred by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag viz., Ayurved Ratna or Vaidya Visharad after 01.10.1976 are not valid qualifications for practicing medicine and consequently the incumbent possessing the said qualifications is not eligible for being enrolled on such register of medicine and practice Indian Medicine. Therefore, the verdict of the Division Bench has saved the degrees obtained by the petitioner, which are "Ayurved Ratna" and "Vaidya Visharad". The relevant paragraph of the judgment of Division Bench is as under:- 7. Therefore, the verdict of the Division Bench has saved the degrees obtained by the petitioner, which are "Ayurved Ratna" and "Vaidya Visharad". The relevant paragraph of the judgment of Division Bench is as under:- 7. We, further, hold that the qualification prescribed under the Act of 1953 to the extent it is repugnant to the Central Act of 1970 cannot confer any person a right to practise or seek enrollment on the State Register of Indian Medicine to the extent the qualification prescribed under the State Act or recognised under the State law are repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act and to that extent the constitution of the right to practice and avail privilege attached to such right of persons enrolled on the State register of Indian Medicine or were so entitled to be enrolled at the time of commencement of Act of 1970 that is to say as on 1.10.1976, when Section 17 was brought into force, does not confer a right on any such person to practise Indian Medicine or to get himself enrolled on the State Register of Indian Medicines on the basis of Ayurveda Ratna Vaidh Visharad Degrees conferred by the Hindi Sahitya Sammalen, Prayag after 1.10.1976. Therefore, the persons who had acquired such degrees up to 1.10.1976 from the aforesaid Institution continues to be eligible for being enrolled on State register of medicine and practice Indian Medicine in view of Section 17(3) (a)&(b) of the Act of 1970. However, persons having qualification not recognised under the Act of 1953 after 1.10.76 shall not be eligible for any such right to participate in elections on the basis of their eligibility to practise under sub-section (3) of Section 17. 8. The aforesaid verdict of Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the issue afresh in case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [ (2010) 12 SCC 609 ] with four other connected appeals. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said judgment, while examining the qualifications of Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna, has held that an incumbent acquiring such qualifications after 1967 is not eligible to indulge in any kind of medical practice. v. Union of India & Ors. [ (2010) 12 SCC 609 ] with four other connected appeals. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said judgment, while examining the qualifications of Vaidya Visharad and Ayurved Ratna, has held that an incumbent acquiring such qualifications after 1967 is not eligible to indulge in any kind of medical practice. Taking serious note of fake qualifications in medicine particularly the degrees awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag/Allahabad, the Hon'ble Apex Court made following observations in paras 13 & 14 are as under:- 13. Admittedly, in none of these cases, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag/Allahabad has been impleaded as party. There is nothing on record to show that the persons who have acquired such certificates from the said Societies possess any other academic qualification i.e. as to whether they have passed matriculation or intermediate or they possess any other qualification to make them eligible to apply for such certificate. There is no document on record disclosing as what was the institution/school where such persons had got admission, imparted education, attended the classes and practicals in laboratories and what was its duration. A bald statement in all these cases that persons possess certificates from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been made. 14. Study of medical sciences requires attendance in the classes and a proper technical training under competent faculty as they play an important role in maintaining the public health. None of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is able to point out as to which university/board, the educational institution where they were imparted medical education had been affiliated and as to whether such schools had ever been accorded recognition by the competent statutory authorities. 9. Approving the five Division Bench decisions of Allahabad High Court that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag had no business to impart education in medical sciences, the Hon'ble Apex Court made following observations in paras 30 to 34:- 30. In Uma Kant Tiwari v. State of U.P. 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. 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 Vijay Kumar Gupta (Dr.) v. State of U.P. 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 practice medicines. 32. In Vijay Kumar Gupta (Dr.) v. State of U.P. a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered the matter at length alongwith 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 the 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 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 & Ors. v. State of U.P. 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 practice at all. 34. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Uma Kant Tiwari was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the High Court to decide afresh in Civil Appeal No.1453 of 2004 vide judgment and order dated 25-5-2007, for the reason that matter had initially been decided by the High Court in 2003 without giving opportunity of hearing to Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad/Prayag. After remand, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad/Prayag were given notices and were directed to file the counter- affidavits. The Court, after hearing all the parties concerned, including Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2009, dismissed the writ petition. 10. After remand, Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad/Prayag were given notices and were directed to file the counter- affidavits. The Court, after hearing all the parties concerned, including Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2009, dismissed the writ petition. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also examined the true purport of Articles 19(1)(g), 6 and 21 of the Constitution vis-a-vis unqualified doctors to practice and found that it is a reasonable restriction within the four corners of these Articles. The Hon'ble Apex Court made following observations in para 48 of the verdict:- 48. In view of the above, it is evident that right to practice 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 mal-medical treatment. An unqualified, unregistered and unauthorized 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. 11. In the final conclusion, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the direction of the Division Bench to the extent it has recognised such degrees upto 01.10.1976 from the aforesaid institution and made following observations in paras 52 and 53 of the said judgment:- 52. The instant cases have to be determined strictly in consonance with the law laid down by this Court referred to hereinabove and, particularly, in Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctors' Assn. The observation made by the Rajasthan High Court to the extent that persons who possessed the certificate up to 1-10- 1976 i.e. the date on which the provisions of Section 17 had been enforced in the State of Rajasthan is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in the above referred cases. Therefore, that observation is liable to be set aside. 53. Therefore, that observation is liable to be set aside. 53. In view of the above, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21043 of 2008 is allowed and it is held that a person who acquired the certificate, degree or diploma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag after 1967 is not eligible to indulge in any kind of a medical practice. All other Civil Appeals are dismissed. No costs. 12. The said judgment is also referred by the Division Bench of this Court in a recent pronouncement in case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3875/2006 (Ved Prakash Tyagi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 4th December, 2013 . 13. Permitting the incumbents to practice as Vaidh without requisite valid qualification amounts to allowing quacks to practice medicine, which is not congenial for the society. This sort of situation may create many social problems having direct impact on the human life. 14. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to him, and therefore, the order impugned is violative of principles of natural justice requires judicial scrutiny. In this behalf, suffice it to state that this ambitious contention of the petitioner is misplaced. In view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar (supra), observance of principles of natural justice has became a mere empty formality in the given case. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan & Ors. [ (1980) 4 SCC 379 ] has held that when only one conclusion is possible on the admitted or undisputed facts, court may not issue a writ to compel the observance of principles of natural justice because courts do not issue futile writs. Hon'ble Apex Court made following observations in para 17 of the verdict:- 17. Linked with this question is the question whether the failure to observe natural justice does at all matter if the observance of natural justice would have made no difference, the admitted or indisputable facts speaking for themselves. Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it approves the non-observance of natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs. Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it approves the non-observance of natural justice but because courts do not issue futile writs. But it will be a pernicious principle to apply in other situations where conclusions are controversial, however, slightly, and penalties are discretionary. 15. One more important aspect of the matter is that qualifications acquired by the petitioner to practice in medicine and act as Ayurveda Chikitsak are not valid and recognised qualifications. Therefore, endeavour made by the petitioner for renewal of his licence to practice as Ayurveda Chikitsak is per se a fraud. 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh & Ors [ (2000) 3 SCC 581 ] has held that fraud and justice never dwell together by making following observations in para 3 of the judgment:- 3. "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything" ( Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley ) 17. While relying on the two earlier verdicts of the Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted following observations in paras 13 & 4 of the judgment as under:- 13. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath the two-Judge Bench of this Court held : (SCC p. 2, para 1) " 'Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal' observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings." 14. Such a judgment/decree - by the first court or by the highest court - has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings." 14. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. Another two-Judge Bench, after making reference to a number of earlier decisions rendered by different High Courts in India, stated the legal position thus : (SCC p.563, para 23) "23. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of court, the courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that court. Similarly, where the court is misled by a party or the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the court has the inherent power to recall its order." 18. In view of the foregoing discussions, in my opinion, there is no infirmity much less legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Resultantly, the instant writ petition sans merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed summarily and the interim stay order granted on 13.02.2014 is vacated.Petition dismissed. *******