JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners in these two writ petitions claim to be Doctors practicing in Homoeopathy presently in Kerala, but originally in the State of Nagaland. 2. They say that at the time when the Nagaland Homoeopathic Medicine Act, 1997 was brought in, they were practicing Homoeopathy, and that they were thus entitled under the terms of the provisions of the said Act, particularly Section 9 thereof, to be registered as Homoeopathic Practitioners on the State Register. 3. They assert that they have been so registered under the State Board of Nagaland and, therefore, they claim that they are entitled to be considered for inclusion in the Central Register of Homoeopathy, prepared and maintained by the Central Council of Homoeopathy, under the provisions of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the Central Council has not yet taken a final decision for their inclusion in the Central Register. 4. I have heard the learned Senior counsel, Mrs. Sumathy Dandapani, assisted by Ms. Tania Joy, appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions and the learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2. 5. Since both these writ petitions contain similar averments, raise similar contentions and have sought for similar reliefs, I deem it appropriate to dispose of them jointly in this judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, I treat WP(C) No.21418/2012 as the lead case and any reference to the parties and documents in this judgment will be as per its status in that writ petition. 6. I have closely examined the pleadings on record and the materials produced by the contesting parties. The petitioners assert that they were registered by the State Council of Nagaland under the provisions of the Nagaland Homoeopathic Medicine Act, 1997 as practicing Homoeopaths, which is discernible from Ext.P1 certificate issued by the State of Nagaland. They avouch that they were admitted into the State Register of Nagaland because they were practicing in Homoeopathy at the time when the State Act came into force and also because they have gone through a Board examination conducted by the State Council, as is required under Section 9 of the said Act. However, when they made applications to the Central Council, it raised a query as to the addresses of the petitioners as well as their qualifications. 7. However, when they made applications to the Central Council, it raised a query as to the addresses of the petitioners as well as their qualifications. 7. In fact, the documents on record would indicate that the Central Council was more concerned that the petitioners have made their applications, for inclusion in the Central Register, with addresses which are different from what were shown in Ext.P1 certificate. This is clear from Ext.P3, where the Assistant Secretary of the Central Council has notified the petitioners that the addresses shown by the petitioners are different in the State Register and that, therefore, some clarification is now required from them. The petitioners replied to this by offering explanation that they are now residing in Kerala and, therefore, that they have shown their present addresses and not the addresses in Nagaland. They have also sworn to affidavits, as was required by the Central Council, which is appended to this writ petition as Ext.P7, where they deposed explicitly that they studied Homoeopathic Medicine and gained experience in Nagaland and that they have shifted their practice to Kerala only in the year 2008. In spite of this, however, the Central Council took no further action constraining the petitioners to approach this Court. 8. I see that the Central Council has placed on record a detailed statement. In that statement, they have raised issues which are not raised by them in the correspondence with the petitioners, which is recorded above. They say that they are suspicious about the manner in which the State Council of Nagaland had admitted the petitioners in the State Register and that, therefore, that they have sought for certain clarifications from the Authorities in Nagaland. They maintain that, according to them, the petitioners have not been admitted to the State Register regularly and that based on such a suspicion they had addressed sufficient letters to the Nagaland Authorities who have, however, chosen not to reply. 9. Even though the State Board of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, Nagaland has been arrayed as the third respondent, I see that there is no representation on their behalf, and therefore, I am unable to obtain the reasons as to why the State of Nagaland has chosen not to give clarifications as has been sought for by the Central Council. 9. Even though the State Board of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, Nagaland has been arrayed as the third respondent, I see that there is no representation on their behalf, and therefore, I am unable to obtain the reasons as to why the State of Nagaland has chosen not to give clarifications as has been sought for by the Central Council. However, merely because the competent Authority in Nagaland has refused to give clarification, I do not think that the petitioners can be put to prejudice and that too, in an irrevocable fashion. I am firm in my opinion, based on a panoptic view of the applicable and relevant Regulations, that even if the Authorities in Nagaland choose not to give the clarifications, the Central Council will be obligated in terms of the extant law to consider the applications of the petitioners with the materials available before them. They cannot fainaigue from their statutorily invested responsibility of considering and passing final orders on the applications of the petitioners merely saying that the competent Authorities in Nagaland have not replied to their clarifications. 10. In such factual and legal ambiance, I am of the firm view that the first respondent Central Council will have to consider the applications of the petitioners for being included in the Central Register maintained by them for Homoeopaths based on the various materials that have been produced by the petitioners before this Court, specifically, Ext.P1 certificate of registration. Since the competent Authority in Nagaland had issued Ext.P1 certificate of registration, it is to be generally assumed that this has been issued validly and in conformity with the requirements of the Nagaland Homoeopathic Medicine Act 1997. If the Central Council has any reason to doubt the genuineness of these certificates, it would certainly be up to them to cause such investigation as is permissible under law, but it would not be justifiable that they keep the applications of the petitioners pending for ever without taking action on them. 11. For the reasons above and on a conspectus of all that are recorded above, I am of the view that the Central Council will have to now consider the case of the petitioners, one way or the other, without any further delay. 12. 11. For the reasons above and on a conspectus of all that are recorded above, I am of the view that the Central Council will have to now consider the case of the petitioners, one way or the other, without any further delay. 12. I, therefore, direct the first respondent to take up the applications made by the petitioners for inclusion in the Central Register maintained by them as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in both the writ petitions and adverting specifically to the documents and materials that they have placed before the Council in support of their applications for such registration. I make it clear that if the Central Council still has reasons to be suspicious about the manner in which Ext.P1 certificate has been issued, it can cause such enquiry as is possible and seek such explanation from the competent Authority in the Nagaland, and if no such explanation is received within a reasonable time, it will be obligatory upon them to issue orders, based on the available records, since I am of the view that Ext.P1 certificate would entail a presumption in law, in favour of the petitioners, that it has been issued validly and after following the procedure, as is mandated for registration of Class B Homoeopaths under the Nagaland Homoeopathic Medicine Act 1997. 13. Even though, I notice through the pleadings on record that the petitioners have applied to the competent Authority in Kerala for being registered under the State Act, I have not considered the same on its merits and I leave it open to them to pursue all such remedies under the State Act, as is available to them. These writ petitions are thus ordered. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I direct that there is no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.