JUDGMENT : Shaji. P. Chaly, J. The writ petitions contained under the list IA mentioned above are filed by Ayurveda Hospital Managements' Association, Private Ayurveda Medical Practitioners' Association, Ayurveda Doctors and the Central Council of Indian Medicine respectively, basically challenging the exemption from registration granted under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 ('the Act, 1953' for short) by the State Government invoking the power conferred under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 to unqualified ayurveda practitioners. Whereas, the writ petitions in list IB are filed by the traditional Ayurveda practitioners supporting the orders passed by the State Government granting exemption from registration and seeking directions on the basis of such orders. 2. The batch of writ petitions contained under list II are filed by Naturopathy Practitioners' Association and individual Naturopathy practitioners seeking grant of ‘B’ class registration as per the order dated 17-03-2010, modified order dated 20-01-2011 and the further modified order dated 28-02-2011, and the consequential guidelines, issued by the State Government on the basis of certificates issued by some Universities and on the conditions incorporated thereunder, including authorisation given to the Travancore Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine to issue provisional “B” class registration to the practising Naturopaths, who are not institutionally qualified, except W.P.(C) No. 17507 of 2011, which is filed by a graduate Naturopathy doctor, wherein the aforesaid Government orders are under challenge. 3. Since the writ petitions in the aforesaid two batches are materially connected, on agreement, we have heard them together and propose to pass a common judgment by considering the issues separately. 4. In order to consider the issues raised in the first batch of writ petitions, we rely upon the pleadings and documents contained in W.P. (C) No. 21419 of 2009 filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine. The Central Council of Indian Medicine, hereinafter shortly called Council of Indian Medicine, is a statutory body created by the Parliament through the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter called 'Central Act, 1970'). The Central Act, 1970 was enacted by the Parliament to maintain high and uniform standards of education in the field of Indian Medicine. The system of Indian Medicine commonly known as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha (or Unani Tibb) whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the Central Council may declare by notification from time to time. The Central Act, 1970 was enacted by the Parliament to maintain high and uniform standards of education in the field of Indian Medicine. The system of Indian Medicine commonly known as Ashtang Ayurveda, Siddha (or Unani Tibb) whether supplemented or not by such modern advances as the Central Council may declare by notification from time to time. [The words in brackets shall stand substituted by Act 43 of 2010 to read as Unani, Tibb or Sowa-Rigpa.] Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Central Council alone is vested with powers to regulate the field of Indian Medicine and to prescribe the minimum standards of education in the Indian System of Medicine, namely Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha. 5. The issue raised by the petitioner is that the case presents a classic example of callous executive overreach, whereby the persons without requisite qualifications and clinical experiences are being recklessly permitted to practice as doctors of the Indian Medicine, which is not only unconstitutional, but also a serious hazard to public health and safety in the State of Kerala and is prone to encourage such practices elsewhere in the country. The cause of action put forth by the petitioner leading to the writ petition is that the State Government, as per Ext.P12 order dated 04.06.2009, permitted traditional practitioners of Ayurveda and Homeopathy without recognised qualifications practising in Malabar Region as on 02.11.1987 as well as the traditional practitioners of siddha System of Medicine without recognised qualification practising in Travancore-Cochin regions as on the date of the said impugned order, to practice as doctors in their respective systems of medicine, which according to the Central Council, is in blatant violation of the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 as well as the legal position settled by the Apex Court as well as the High Courts in various judgments. 6. The legal contention raised by the Central Council is that Ext.P12 order dated 04.06.2009 is issued under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953, which is contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 and thus, hit by the doctrine of repugnance and hence, the same is void. 6. The legal contention raised by the Central Council is that Ext.P12 order dated 04.06.2009 is issued under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953, which is contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 and thus, hit by the doctrine of repugnance and hence, the same is void. It is also pointed out that the Medical Education is in the concurrent list of the 7th Schedule of the Indian Constitution and therefore, the order issued by the State Government is in conflict with the Central Act, 1970 and therefore, the provisions of the Central Act will prevail by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution. It is also pointed out that the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 has been held as repugnant and void by the Apex Court in Dr. A.K. Sabhapathi v. State of Kerala and others [1992 Supp (3) SCC 147] in the context of allopathic medicine. 7. According to the petitioner, even though the said declaration was made in the context of the Allopathic system of Medicine, the ratio is squarely applicable to the Indian Medicine mutatis mutandis, since the Central Act, 1970 are analogous to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the provisions of which guided the Apex Court in Dr. A.K. Sabhapathi (supra) and therefore, identical in scope and nature on a comparison of the relevant provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Central council Act, 1970. It is also the case projected by the Central Council that despite numerous exhortations by the Government of India as well as the petitioner Council from the year 1980 onwards, to remove inconsistencies and to make the provisions of the State Act compatible and in consonance with the Central Act, there has been no progress till date. It is further contended that Ext.P12 order is clearly a case of executive impropriety, as evident from their own previous order dated 10.11.2008 stating that Section 17(3)(c) of the Central Act, 1970 had provisions for protecting persons who had been practising Indian System of Medicine for 5 years up to the date of commencement of the said Act. i.e., on 01.10.1976 and accordingly, permitting persons without recognised qualifications to practice as doctors of Indian Medicine is wholly coloured besides being fraught with grave danger to public health and safety. i.e., on 01.10.1976 and accordingly, permitting persons without recognised qualifications to practice as doctors of Indian Medicine is wholly coloured besides being fraught with grave danger to public health and safety. While so, the State Government has issued an order dated 21.02.2011 granting exemption from registration pertaining to the traditional practitioners of Ayurveda, and practitioners of homoeopathy with unrecognized qualifications in Malabar region, which is produced as Ext.P16 as an additional document in the writ petition. Accordingly, an amendment of the writ petition was also sought by the Central Council seeking to quash Ext.P16 order dated 21.02.2011 issued by the State Government which was allowed. 8. Apparently, in W.P.(C) No. 16400 of 2009, one among the writ petitions in the batch, paper publication was carried out by the petitioner therein namely Vanchiyoor Madhom Dhanwanthari Sannidhanam, a registered organisation conducted by qualified ayurveda practitioners, as per the order of this Court dated 16.09.2009 for enabling those persons interested in the subject matter to get themselves impleaded in the writ petition, in the Mathrubhumi Daily dated 14.10.2009, consequent to which various persons have got themselves impleaded and filed counter affidavits supporting the orders issued by the State Government exempting the unqualified persons from registration exercising the powers conferred under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953. 9. In fact, the State Government has filed the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 16400 of 2009 which is common to all the writ petitions, since the subject issue basically revolves around the question of law raised by the writ petitioners regarding repugnancy of the 1st proviso to section 38 of Act 1953 vis a vis the provisions of the Central Council Act 1970. 10. The paramount contention advanced by the State Government is that the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 empowers the Government to exempt any persons or class of persons from the operation of the first proviso contained under Section 38. Therefore, according to the State Government, by virtue of the powers under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953, the Government was empowered to grant exemption from registration to a Medical practitioner. Therefore, according to the State Government, by virtue of the powers under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953, the Government was empowered to grant exemption from registration to a Medical practitioner. However, later the Government thought not to implement the decision to exempt as per Government Order No. 293/2009 dated 17.08.2009, since the Government thought it fit to constitute a committee comprising experts in the field of ayurveda and homoeopathy to study the possibilities of giving permission to traditional ayurveda practitioners, Siddha vaidyans and Homoeo Practitioners to practice in accordance with the Central and State Laws. It is also submitted that in the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. A.K. Sabhapathi (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 does not deal with the registration of Medical Practitioners in the States and it proceeds on the basis that the said registration and the maintenance of the State Medical Register are to be governed by the law made by the State and hence, it cannot be said that the Central council Act, 1970 lays down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter dealt with by the State Act. It is also submitted that the Registrar of the Travancore Cochin Medical Council has informed that at the time of coming into force of the Central Act, 1970 on 01.10.1976, there was no State Register applicable to the entire State of Kerala, including the erstwhile Malabar District. It is also submitted that one of the objects of the Act, 1953 is to encourage the study and spread of modern medicine, homoeopathic medicine and indigenous medicine. It is also stated that the Siddha system of medicine is a well developed branch of indigenous medicine. But, the system has no educational institution in the State, except one for its promotion. Therefore, according to the State Government, there is justification for the exemption given to the Paramparya Siddha Vaidyas in the State. The Paramparya Vaidyans, who have got themselves impleaded in W.P.(C) No. 16400 of 2009, have also filed counter affidavits supporting the stand adopted by the State Government and contents that the State Government is vested with ample powers to grant exemption and there is no repugnancy at all by and between the provisions of the Act, 1970 and the Act, 1953. It was also contended that the traditional Ayurveda practitioners were practising Ayurveda for more than five years prior to 01-10-1976, the date of coming into force of the Central Act, 1970. 11. It is also pointed out that the judgment in Vanchiyoor Madhom Dhanwanthari Sannidhanam v. State of Kerala [ 2003 (1) KLT 520 ] rendered by this Court only upholds the Government's power under the first proviso to Section 38 and invoking the said power only, the Government has issued the order granting exemption to the traditional ayurveda practitioners. Yet another contention advanced in one of the writ petitions is that the challenge against the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 38 is hit by the principles of constructive res judicata, since the self same petitioner had not chosen to raise such a ground in W.P.(C) Nos. 27784 and 21923 of 2002. It is also contended that the whole framework of the Government Order invoking the power under the proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is a benefit extended to vaidyas hailing from Malabar area, where there was no Act in force enabling registration. It is also submitted that the Act, 1953 extends to the whole of Travancore-Cochin and the same was not made applicable to the Malabar area and anyhow, the proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is an interdiction to Section 38, since a clear exception is carved out as per the proviso. Again, it is contended that the Madras Medical Registration Act, 1914 ('the Act, 1914' for brevity) provided for registration of practitioners in allopathy or any other system of medicine as permitted under Section 13 of the said Act. Therefore, the Madras Medical Registration Act continues to be the law in force applicable to the Malabar area even now by placing reliance on Article 372 read with Article 13(b) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that it is significant to note that the Act, 1914 only provided for registration of the practitioners of the allopathic branch of medicine and practitioners having degrees then available connected with the allopathic branch of medicines. Therefore, it is the contention that the Act, 1914 is never intended for the registration of the practitioners in the ayurvedic branch of medicine, much less the paramparya vaidyam. Therefore, it is the contention that the Act, 1914 is never intended for the registration of the practitioners in the ayurvedic branch of medicine, much less the paramparya vaidyam. Further, it is contended that the traditional ayurveda remains as a class, independent and distinct from the present form of the ayurvedic Education, inculcated through colleges and universities, nevertheless the traditional ayurveda remains inextricably interwoven with the present ayurvedic system of medicine. Apart from the aforesaid contentions, it is submitted that challenges made against the Government Orders, by the qualified doctors and other organisations, have no locus standi to question the policy decision of the State Government as reflected in the Government Orders. It is also submitted that there is no repugnance by and between the Act, 1953 and the Central Act, 1970, since both operate in different fields and therefore, the contentions made in the writ petition challenging the Government Order have no legal basis. These are the basic contentions placed for the consideration of this Court, insofar as the challenge against the Government Order exempting traditional ayurveda practitioners from registration is concerned. 12. Writ petitions contained in list II specified above is in respect of the Naturopathy practitioners and the Government Order directing 'B' class registration. Except W.P.(C) No. 17507 of 2011, all other writ petitions are filed seeking a direction to implement various Government Orders specified above authorising the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine to issue professional 'B' class registration to the practising naturopaths and other similarly situated persons, who are not institutionally qualified to practice such system of medicine. 13. In order to narrate the facts, the pleadings put forth in W.P. (C) Nos. 20495 of 2011 and 169 of 2017 are relied upon. The basic contention advanced by the unqualified practitioners is that the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy has mandated certain conditions and guidelines for granting 'A' class and 'B' class registration to the qualified and practising naturopaths, which guideline is produced as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No. 20495 of 2011. The basic contention advanced by the unqualified practitioners is that the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy has mandated certain conditions and guidelines for granting 'A' class and 'B' class registration to the qualified and practising naturopaths, which guideline is produced as Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No. 20495 of 2011. The guidelines for 'B' class registration reads that, in recognition of the fact that there are a significant number of self educated naturopathy practitioners, class 'B' registration may be given as a one time measure to self educated full time naturopathy practitioners, who are not institutionally qualified and are not less than 35 years of age, who have a minimum fifteen years of full time clinical experience and who have passed class XII or 10+2 from a State Board, the CBSE or the ICSE. It is pointed out that the State Government has issued the order dated 17.03.2010 bearing G.O.(P) No. 160/2010/H&FWD in order to implement the guidelines issued by the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy. Therefore, according to the Naturopathy practitioners, all the similarly situated petitioners are entitled to get 'B' class registration. However, in spite of the Government Orders, registration is not granted. That apart, it is submitted that the Naturopathy, as an alternative system of medicine, has been gaining the attention of both the State and the Central Government and it was accordingly that the Government decided to grant registration as one time measure to both the institutionally qualified naturopaths as well as self educated naturopaths. Therefore, it was accordingly that classification of 'A' and 'B' were made. It is also submitted that as per Entry 26 of List III of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, legal, medical and other professions can be regulated by the State Government in the absence of any regulation by the Central Government. It was, accordingly, that the executive power was invoked by the State Government under Article 162 of the Constitution of India and executive orders were issued as per Exts.P5 to P7. It is also submitted that the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and it was, accordingly, that the Government, after a careful and thorough study, have decided to grant registration to Naturopathy and other such practitioners. It is also submitted that the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and it was, accordingly, that the Government, after a careful and thorough study, have decided to grant registration to Naturopathy and other such practitioners. Other contentions relying upon the proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 are also raised, which are discussed above in the matter of the writ petitions contained under List I. 14. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit, basically contending that without securing registration, the naturopaths and other similarly situated persons cannot practice. However, it is pointed out that it was invoking the powers contained under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 that the State Government has issued orders to grant class 'B' registration to the unqualified Naturopathy practitioners. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, learned Senior Government Pleaders and the respective counsel appearing for the party respondents in the writ petitions. In fact, we have decided to hear the writ petitions together, in view of the fact that the basic issues raised by the rival parties are on the basis of Section 38 and the first proviso thereto of the Act, 1953 vis-a-vis the provisions of the Central Act, 1971. Section 38 and the first proviso thereto read thus: “38. Persons not registered under this Act, etc., not to practice.- No person other than (i) a registered practitioner or (ii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list of practitioners published under Section 30 or (iii) a practitioner whose name is entered in the list mentioned in Section 25 shall practice or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practicing modern medicine, homeopathic medicine or ayurvedic medicine, siddha medicine or unani tibbi and no person who is not a registered practitioner of any such medicine shall practice any other medicine unless he is also a registered practitioner of that medicine: Provided that the Government may. by notification in the Gazette, direct that this section shall not apply to any person or class or persons or to any specified area in the State where none of the three classes of practitioners mentioned above carries on medical practice:” 16. by notification in the Gazette, direct that this section shall not apply to any person or class or persons or to any specified area in the State where none of the three classes of practitioners mentioned above carries on medical practice:” 16. Section 38 of the Act, 1953 makes it clear that no person other than a registered practitioner or a practitioner whose name is entered in the list of practitioners published under Section 30 of Act, 1953 or a practitioner whose name is entered in the list mentioned in Section 25 of Act, 1953 shall practice or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practicing modern medicine, homeopathic medicine or ayurvedic medicine, siddha medicine or unani tibbi and no person who is not a registered practitioner of any such medicine shall practice any other medicine, unless he is also a registered practitioner of that medicine. To put it otherwise, without registration, in contemplation of Section 38, no person is entitled to practice the kind of medicines prescribed in Section 38. However, by virtue of the first proviso, the Government is vested with powers to notify in the Gazette that Section 38 shall not apply to any person or class of persons or to any specified area in the State, where none of the three classes of practitioners mentioned above carries on medical practice. The petitioners, who are supporting the Government Orders granting exemption, have no case that they have registration in terms of the Act, 1953 or they are included in the list of practitioners as on first April, 1953 by virtue of Section 25 of the Act, 1953. The significant feature of Section 38 and the definitions of 'council' and 'indigenous medicine' makes it clear that Act, 1953 deals with modern medicine, Homeopathic Medicine and Indigeneous Medicine. 'Indigenous Medicine' is defined to mean 'the ayurvedic medicine, the siddha medicine and the unani tibbi medicine. Modern medicine is taken care of by the Council of modern medicine, the Homeopathic Medicine is taken care of by the Council of Homeopathic Medicine and the Indigenous Medicine is taken care of by the Council of Indigeneous Medicine, established under Section 3 of the Act, 1953. 17. Modern medicine is taken care of by the Council of modern medicine, the Homeopathic Medicine is taken care of by the Council of Homeopathic Medicine and the Indigenous Medicine is taken care of by the Council of Indigeneous Medicine, established under Section 3 of the Act, 1953. 17. The paramount contention advanced by the Central Council of Indigeneous Medicine is that the said Council is constituted by creation of the Parliament through a Central Act, namely Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, which is intended to regulate the field of Indian Medicine and to prescribe minimum standards of education in the Indian system of Medicine, namely ayurveda, Unani and Siddha systems of medicine. However, the State Government, by virtue of the orders referred to above, exempted the practitioners of Ayurveda and Homeopathy with unrecognised qualifications from the requirements of the registration under the provisions of the Act, 1953. The significant contention advanced is that the exemption granted by the State Government is in conflict with Section 17 of the Central Act, 1970 and therefore, the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 and accordingly, repugnant and void. Sections 17 and 23 of the Central Act, 1970 read thus: “17. Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules to be enrolled.- (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any medical qualification included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine. Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules to be enrolled.- (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any medical qualification included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine. (2) Save as provided in section 28, no person other than a practitioner of Indian medicine who possesses a recognized medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine,- (a) shall hold office as Vaid, Siddha, Hakim or [physician or] any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority; (b) shall practise Indian medicine in any State; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by a law any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; (d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), on any matter relating to Indian medicine. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall affect,- (a) the right of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine to practise Indian medicine in any State merely on the ground that, on the commencement of this Act, he does not possess a recognized medical qualification; (b) the privileges (including the right to practise any system of medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian medicine for the time being in force in any State on a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine; (c) the right of a person to practise Indian medicine in a State in which, on the commencement of this Act, a State Register of Indian Medicine is not maintained if, on such commencement, he has been practising Indian medicine for not less than five years; (d) the rights conferred by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) [including the right to practise medicine as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the said Act], on persons possessing any qualifications included in the Schedules to the said Act. (4) Any person who acts in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 23. The Central Register of Indian Medicine.- (1) The Central Council shall cause to be maintained in the prescribed manner, a register of practitioners in separate parts for each of the system of Indian medicine to be known as the Central Register of Indian Medicine which shall contain the names of all persons who are for the time being enrolled on any State Register of Indian Medicine and who possess any of the recognised medical qualifications. (2) It shall be the duty of the Registrar of the Central Council to keep and maintain the Central Register of Indian Medicine in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of any orders made by the Central Council, and from time to time to revise the register and publish it in the Gazette of India and in such other manner as may be prescribed. (3) Such register shall be deemed to be a public document within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), and may be proved by a copy published in the Gazette of India.” 18. On a reading of Section 17(2), it is clear that it expressly bars the practice of Indian Medicine in any State by persons not holding recognised qualification under the Central Act, 1970. To put it otherwise, the Central Act, 1970 does not envisage any exemption from the provisions in the Act regarding the qualification or registration of practitioners in various branches of Indigeneous Medicine, namely Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani etc. However, sub-Section (3)(c) of Section 17 of the Act, 1970 protects persons, who had been practising Indian system of medicine for at least five years as on the date of commencement of the Central Act, 1970, provided there had been no State Register maintained in the State on the commencement of the Central Act, 1970. However, sub-Section (3)(c) of Section 17 of the Act, 1970 protects persons, who had been practising Indian system of medicine for at least five years as on the date of commencement of the Central Act, 1970, provided there had been no State Register maintained in the State on the commencement of the Central Act, 1970. On going through the Government Orders, it is quite clear and evident that the State Government, by invoking the powers conferred under the proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953, has issued an order dated 04.06.2009, whereby the traditional practitioners of Ayurveda and Homeopathy without recognised qualifications practising in Malabar Region as on 02.11.1987 as well as the traditional practitioners of siddha system of Medicine without recognised qualification practising in Travancore-Cochin regions as on the date of the Government Order granted permission to practice in their respective system of medicine, which is found to be contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970. It is important to note that after the commencement of the Central Act, 1970 and due to the enforcement of Section 17 across the country on and with effect from 01.10.1976, the schedule of the State Act is deemed to have been replaced by the schedules of the Central Act, 1970. Which thus means the enrolment and the registration of persons not having qualifications recognised under the Central Act or permitting such persons to practice without formal registration by invoking the first proviso to Section 38 of Act, 1953 can only be said to be not legally sustainable. This is because Article 254 of the Constitution of India deals with a situation where there is inconsistency between a Central and State Act. Clause (1) thereto specifies that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. Clause (2) thereto states that where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State, provided that nothing in the clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State. 19. It is true, the subject matter of Medical Education is in the concurrent list of the 7th Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Going by Article 254, it is clear and evident that when there is a Central enactment in force, the State is not expected to come out with any notification under Article 162 of the Constitution of India in conflict with the Central Law. On a perusal of the provisions of the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 and Section 17 of the Central Act, 1970, it is clear that the Government Orders specified above purportedly issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India are in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, 1970. 20. Arguments are also advanced relying upon the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, dated 31.08.1956, wherein the 'existing State' is defined under Section 2(g) to mean a State specified in the first Schedule to the Constitution at the commencement of the Reorganisation Act, 1956. Part XI of Reorganisation Act, 1956 deals with the legal and miscellaneous provisions. Section 119 thereto refers to the territorial extent of laws, which specifies that the provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to an existing State shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day. On the basis of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, a proclamation is made by the President of India for general information and whereas by virtue of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, a new State of Kerala is formed on the first day of November, 1956. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 120 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State Government is empowered by order to make such adaptations and modifications of certain laws whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, for the purpose of facilitating the application of such laws in relation to the State of Kerala. Accordingly, the State of Kerala has made the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956. Clause 2(1)(c) thereto defines the 'existing law' to mean 'any law as defined in clause (h) of Section 2 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, in force in the State of Travancore-Cochin or Malabar District or any part of the said State or District immediately before the appointed day and in respect of which the State Government has power to make adaptations under Section 120 of the said Act'. 'Malabar District' is defined under clause 2(b) of the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956 to mean 'the District known as such by Section 5(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. It is an admitted fact that the present Malabar area was under Madras State and the laws applicable in the Malabar area insofar as the registration of the Medical Practitioners was concerned, was the Madras Medical Registration Act, 1914 ('Act, 1914' for short). Section 3(2) of the Act, 1914 defines 'Council' to mean a Council of modern medicine established under Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. In Section 11, it specifies that the names of all medical practitioners registered under the Madras Act, 1914 and holding any appointment or practicing in the District of Malabar or the Kasaragod Taluk immediately before the first day of November, 1956 shall be included in the Register. In Section 11, it specifies that the names of all medical practitioners registered under the Madras Act, 1914 and holding any appointment or practicing in the District of Malabar or the Kasaragod Taluk immediately before the first day of November, 1956 shall be included in the Register. Section 25 thereto states that the medical practitioners registered under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, be registered under the Act, 1914 and notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, 1914, any person -- (i) registered under part A of the register for Modern Medicine maintained under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and holding any appointment, or practising immediately before the first day of November, 1956 in that portion of the State of Travancore- Cochin which formed part of the State of Kerala; or (ii) registered on or after the first day of November, 1956 under Part A of the register for Modern Medicine maintained under the said Act; shall, so long as such registration continues in force, be deemed to be registered under the Act. Correspondingly, the Act, 1953 was amended and Section 47A was inserted which specifies that the medical practitioners registered under the Act, 1914, to be deemed registered under the Act, 1953 and notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, 1953, any person – (i) registered under the Act, 1914 and holding any appointment or practising in the District of Malabar or Kasaragod Taluk immediately before the first day of November, 1956; or (ii) registered on or after the first day of November, 1956 under the said Act, as applied to the district of Malabar; shall so long as such registration continues in force, be deemed registered in Part A of the Register for modern medicines maintained under the Act, 1953. Relying upon the said provisions, the sum and substance of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the Central Council for Indian Medicine is that insofar as the present Malabar area within the State of Kerala is concerned, it is guided by the Madras Act, 1914 and that too the registration thereunder is only with the Council for Modern Medicine established under Section 3 of the Act, 1953 and therefore, it is submitted that insofar as the Malabar District is concerned, the same was under the Act, 1914 and the registration of the qualified practitioners was only in respect of the Modern Medicine established under Section 3 of the Act, 1953. Therefore, it is submitted that there was no enabling law for the registration of even the qualified ayurveda practitioners either under the Act, 1914 or under the Act, 1953. However, the State Register of Indian Medicine is defined under the Central Council Act, 1970 to mean ‘a register or registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of the practitioners of Indian Medicine’. Therefore, even though the provisions of the Act, 1914 and the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 deals with the registration of the practitioners of modern medicine, by virtue of the powers conferred under the Central Act, 1970, the practitioners of Indian Medicine who have entered the names in the register/registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State has a valid registration to practice the profession of Indian Medicine. ‘State Register of Indian Medicine’ is defined under Section 2(1)(j) of the Central council Act 1970 to mean ‘a register or registers maintained under any law for the time being in force in any State regulating the registration of practitioners of Indian medicine’. However a conjoint reading of the definitions of 'Indian Medicine' provided under Section 2 (1)(e) and the 'State Register of Indian Medicine' contained under Section 2 (1)(j) make it clear that on maintenance of a register or registers, the practitioners of ayurveda, siddha or unani tibb are entitled to practice Indian Medicine on securing registration. However a conjoint reading of the definitions of 'Indian Medicine' provided under Section 2 (1)(e) and the 'State Register of Indian Medicine' contained under Section 2 (1)(j) make it clear that on maintenance of a register or registers, the practitioners of ayurveda, siddha or unani tibb are entitled to practice Indian Medicine on securing registration. Whatever that be, we make it clear that under the Central Act, 1970, the recognised medical qualification is defined in Section 2(i)(h) to mean 'any of the medical qualifications, including postgraduate medical qualification, of the Indian medicine included in the Second, Third and Fourth Schedule. The second Schedule of Central Act, 1970 constituted as per Section 14, deals with recognised medical qualifications in Indian Medicine granted by Universities, Boards or other medical institutions in India and Part I thereto deals with ayurveda and siddha. The third schedule constituted under Section 15 deals with qualifications granted by certain medical institutions before 15th August, 1947 in areas which comprised within India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 and the fourth Schedule constituted under Section 16 of Central Act, 1970 deals with qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries with which there is a scheme of reciprocity. The writ petitioners, who are supporting the Government Orders granting exemption from registration of the traditional ayurveda practitioners, are not having a case that they are entitled to get any benefits of the provisions of the Act, 1970 or the institutions and Universities included in the second and third Schedules. 21. Therefore, taking into account all these provisions of law, we are of the considered opinion that the exemption granted by the State Government to unqualified practitioners invoking the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 cannot be legally sustained. Anyhow, the question with respect to the power of exemption under the first proviso to Section 38 of Act, 1953 was considered by the Apex Court vis-a-vis the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 in respect of the Allopathic system of Medicine in Dr A.K.Sabapathy (supra) and held as follows in paragraph 16: “16. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the Central Act does not lay down the qualifications for registration of a medical practitioner. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the High Court that the Central Act does not lay down the qualifications for registration of a medical practitioner. We may in this context refer to sub-section (1) of Section 15 which postulates the holding of a recognised medical qualification by a person for being registered in the State Medical Register so as to entitle to practise modern scientific medicine in the State and sub-section (1) of Section 21 which provides that the Indian Medical Register that is required to be maintained by the Medical Council of India shall contain the name of persons who are for the time being enrolled in the State Medical Register and who possess any of the recognised medical qualifications. These provisions contemplate that a person can practise in allopathic system of medicine in a State or in the country only if he possesses a recognised medical qualification. Permitting a person who does not possess the recognised medical qualification in the allopathic system of medicine would be in direct conflict with the provisions of the Central Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the first proviso to Section 38 of the State Act insofar as it empowers the State Government to permit a person to practise allopathic system of medicine even though he does not possess the recognised medical qualifications for that system of medicine is inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 15 and 21 read with Sections 11 to 14 of the Central Act. The said proviso suffers from the vice of repugnancy insofar as it covers persons who want to practise the allopathic system of medicine and is void to the extent of such repugnancy. Practitioners in allopathic system of medicine must, therefore, be excluded from the scope of the first proviso and it must be confined in its application to systems of medicines other than the allopathic system of medicine. We, however, wish to make it clear that we have not considered the impact of the provisions contained in the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 on the provisions of the said proviso to Section 38 of the State Act. ” 22. However, on an analysis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. ” 22. However, on an analysis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy (supra), it is evident that in the said judgment, the impact of the provisions contained in the Central Act, 1970 and the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 vis-a-vis the provisions of the first proviso to Section 38 of the State Act 1953 was not considered. But the Apex Court had occasion to consider the said issue of repugnancy in the realm of the Central Act, 1970 in Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum v. State of Kerala and others, (2018) 6 SCC 648 . There the question considered was, whether the persons who do not fulfil the prescribed qualifications and are not duly registered under the relevant statute, be permitted to practice paramparya vaidyam. After considering Section 17 of the Central Act, 1970 and Sections 23 and 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, the arguments of the State was summarised at paragraph 13 as follows: “13. The learned counsel further submitted that the modus operandi of such practitioners in the State is to register an association under the Societies Registration Act or the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, with an object to enrol members and to issue certificates in order to enable them to practise Indian System of Medicine in the guise of “Paramparya Vaidyas”. The learned counsel for the State further contended that in most of these cases, there is no tradition or paramparayam for any of the members of such registered association and most of them continue in the field of practice with bogus certificates, degrees and diplomas. The learned counsel finally contended that the bogus practitioners, without having requisite qualification and registration, should not be allowed to play with the lives of the people and to practise the Indian System of Medicine in the State of Kerala.” 23. Anyhow, after considering the proposition of law laid down in Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy, it was held that even though the impact of the provisions of the IMCC Act was not considered, the provisions of Section 17 of the IMCC Act also provides for recognition of the medical qualifications included in the second, third and fourth Schedules to be sufficient qualification for enrolment in any State Register of Indian Medicine. Thus, the same principles as has been laid down in Dr. Thus, the same principles as has been laid down in Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy (supra), as reproduced above, will also apply. Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment in Kerala Ayurveda paramparya Vaidya Forum (supra) is relevant to the context and they read thus: 18. Section 23 of the Act provides for eligibility conditions for registration of medical practitioners. Under sub-section (1), a holder of a recognised qualification or holding appointment under the Government at the commencement of the Act and every other practitioner who has been in regular practice for 5 (five) years preceding 1-4-1953, if applies within one year have been made eligible for registration. However, by Section 38 of the Act, persons not registered under the Act have been prohibited from practising various types of medicines. The first proviso empowers the State Government to exempt any person or class of persons from undergoing registration. It is also evident that the Government of Kerala had granted exemption to some traditional practitioners like those who belonged to the renowned Ashtavaidya families. 19. The capacity to diagnose the disease would depend upon the fact as to whether the practitioner had the necessary professional skill to do so. Acquisition of professional skill is again a regulated subject and the measure thereof is the possession of a prescribed diploma or degree awarded by a recognised institution. What one might enquire with regard to the right to practise medicine in the light of the above is as to whether the appellants are equipped with such a professional qualification. The answer is, obviously, in the negative, as admittedly, the appellants do not possess any prescribed diploma or degree from a recognised institution for that purpose. Even a person who has acquired the prescribed diploma or degree from a recognised institution would not be entitled to practise medicine unless he is so registered under the provisions of the IMCC Act. 20. In A.K. Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala [A.K. Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 147], the provisions of Section 38 of the Act and Sections 15 and 21 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 came up for consideration before this Court wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 20. In A.K. Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala [A.K. Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 147], the provisions of Section 38 of the Act and Sections 15 and 21 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 came up for consideration before this Court wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 160- 61, para 16) [Since para 16 in Dr A.K Sabapathy is extracted above for sake of brevity it is not repeated]” And it was held as follows at paragraph 21: “21. Even though the impact of the provisions of the IMCC Act was not considered but the provision of Section 17 of the IMCC Act also provides for recognition of medical qualification included in Second, Third and Fourth Schedules to be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine. Thus, the same principles as had been laid down in A.K. Sabhapathy [A.K. Sabhapathy v. State of Kerala, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 147], as reproduced above, will also apply.” 24. In that context, the findings rendered by the Apex Court in Kerala Ayurveda paramparya Vaidya Forum (supra) at paragraphs 25 to 27 are relevant to arrive at a proper conclusion. They read thus: “25. In our country, the qualified practitioners are much less than the required number. Earlier, there were very few institutions imparting teaching and training to the doctors, vaidyas and hakims but the situation has changed and there are quite a good number of institutions imparting education in indigenous medicines. Even after 70 years of Independence, the persons having little knowledge or having no recognised or approved qualification are practising medicine and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people. The right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business is no doubt a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. But that right is subject to any law relating to the professional or technical qualification necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation or trade or business. The regulatory measures on the exercise of this right both with regard to the standard of professional qualifications and professional conduct have been applied keeping in view not only the right of the medical practitioners but also the right to life and proper health care of persons who need medical care and treatment. Conclusion 26. The regulatory measures on the exercise of this right both with regard to the standard of professional qualifications and professional conduct have been applied keeping in view not only the right of the medical practitioners but also the right to life and proper health care of persons who need medical care and treatment. Conclusion 26. In our country, the numbers of qualified medical practitioners have been much less than the required number of such persons. The scarcity of qualified medical practitioner was previously quite large since there were very few institutions imparting teaching and training to doctors, vaidyas, hakims, etc. The position has now changed and there are quite a good number of medical colleges imparting education in various streams of medicine. No doubt, now there are a good numbers of such institutions training qualified medical practitioners at number of places. The persons having no recognised and approved qualifications, having little knowledge about the indigenous medicines, are becoming medical practitioners and playing with the lives of thousands and millions of people. Sometimes such quacks commit blunders and precious lives are lost. 27. The Government had been vigilant all along to stop such quackery. A number of unqualified, untrained quacks are posing a great risk to the entire society and playing with the lives of people without having the requisite training and education in the science from approved institutions. The Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 as well as the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 were also enacted on the similar lines. Every practitioner shall be deemed to be a practitioner registered under the Act if at the commencement of this Act, his name stands entered in the appropriate register maintained under the said Act and every certificate of registration issued to every such practitioner shall be deemed to be a certificate of registration issued under this Act. But in the present case, the appellants herein have failed to show that they possessed requisite recognised qualification for registration entitling them to practise Indian system of medicines or their names have been entered in the appropriate registers after the commencement of this Act. 25. But in the present case, the appellants herein have failed to show that they possessed requisite recognised qualification for registration entitling them to practise Indian system of medicines or their names have been entered in the appropriate registers after the commencement of this Act. 25. Therefore, it is clear that the question with respect to the powers of the State Government to grant exemption under the Act, 1953 vis-a-vis the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 was considered by the Apex Court also taking into account the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy (supra), and held that unless and until a qualified practitioner secures registration under the provisions of the Act, 1970 they are not entitled to practice the Indian system of Medicine or they are entitled to register their names in the appropriate Registers after the commencement of the Central Act, 1970 otherwise than as provided under the Central Act, 1970. According to us, the clear cut findings entered by the Apex Court in Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy (supra) and the Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum (supra) make it clear that the issues now raised in the writ petitions are settled finally and therefore, the State Government is not empowered to grant any exemption invoking the first proviso to Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and permit practice otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Central Council Act 1970,r/w with the relevant provisions of the Act 1953. Since the Apex Court in Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum has followed the proposition of law in Dr. A.K. Sabhapathy, we are of the clear opinion that the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is repugnant to the provisions of Section 17 of the Central Act, 1970. We are also of the opinion that the Central Act, 1970 was brought into force in order to maintain the minimum standards for admission, duration of courses of training, details of the curricula and syllabi of studies and the title of degree or diploma varying from State to State and even from Institution to Institution in the same State and the statutory Central Council was constituted after conducting an in depth study by the Government of India relating to the Indian system of medicine and homeopathy. The main functions of the Central Council is to involve uniform standards of education and registration of the practitioners of the Indian system of Medicine and Homoeopathy and the Central Council was empowered to form separate committees for ayurveda, siddha, unani and homeopathy and the registration of the practitioners was made compulsory on the Central Register of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy to ensure that the medicine is not practised by those who are not qualified in the Indian systems of Medicine and those who practice, observe the Code of Ethics in the profession. It was specifying the above that the bill was introduced and the Central Act, 1970 was constituted. Even though we find that the Government of India have addressed various communications to the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Kerala to make suitable alterations in the Register, which communications are produced along with W.P.(C) No. 21419 of 2009 filed by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, no effective steps were taken to make suitable amendments in the Act, 1953 to avoid conflict with the Central Act, 1970. However, the State Government has chosen to issue Government Orders specified above granting exemption from registration, thus, permitting the traditional practitioners of ayurveda to practice ayurveda without the qualifications prescribed under the law and registration in terms of law. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the action of the State Government in granting exemption invoking the powers conferred under the first proviso to Section 38 to traditional Ayurveda practitioners has no legal sustenance, and further the 1st proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 being repugnant to Section 17(2) of the Central Act, 1970 is unconstitutional. 26. The legal position with respect to the repugnance vis-a-vis the provisions of the Central Act and the State Act in respect of the entries contained under the concurrent list of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India is well settled. However, a reference to the few of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court would set the legal position very clear. In State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Co., AIR 1964 1284], a Five-Member Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered the levy of fee in respect of the mining operations vis-a-vis the State Laws and it was held thus at paragraph 15: “15. In State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Co., AIR 1964 1284], a Five-Member Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered the levy of fee in respect of the mining operations vis-a-vis the State Laws and it was held thus at paragraph 15: “15. But even if the matter was res integra, the argument cannot be accepted. Repugnancy arises when two enactments both within the competence of the two Legislatures collide and when the Constitution expressly or by necessary implication provides that the enactment of one Legislature has superiority over the other then to extent of the repugnancy the one supersedes the other. But two enactments may be repugnant to each other even though obedience of each of them is possible without disobeying the other. The test of two legislations containing contradictory provisions is not, however, the only criterion of repugnancy, for if a competent legislature with a superior efficacy expressly or impliedly evinces by its legislation an intention to cover the whole field, the enactments of the other legislature whether passed before or after would be overborne the on the ground of repugnance. Where such is the position, the inconsistency is demonstrated not by a detailed compression of provisions of the two statutes but by the mere existence of the two pieces of legislation. In the present case, having regard to the terms of S.18(1) it appears clear to us that the intention of Parliament was to cover the entire field and thus to leave no scope for the argument that until rules were framed, there was to inconsistency and no supersession of the State Act.” 27. In M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 431 ], a Five-Member Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered the question with respect to the sanction to prosecute under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973 and the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act] and held as follows in paragraph 8: “8. It would be seen that so far as clause (1) of Article 254 is concerned it clearly lays down that where there is a direct collision between a provision of a law made by the State and that made by Parliament with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the pro- visions of clause (2), the State law would be void to the extent of the repugnancy. This naturally means that where both the State and Parliament occupy the field contemplated by the Concurrent List then the Act passed by Parliament being prior in point of time will prevail and consequently the State Act will have to yield to the Central Act. In fact, the scheme of the Constitution is a scientific and equitable distribution of legislative powers between Parliament and the State Legislatures. First, regarding the matters contained in List I, i.e. the Union List to the Seventh Schedule, Parliament alone is empowered to legislate and the State Legislatures have no authority to make any law in respect of the Entries contained in List I. Secondly, so far as the Concurrent List is concerned, both Parliament and the State Legislatures are entitled to legislate in regard to any of the Entries appearing therein, but that is subject to the condition laid down by Article 254(1) discussed above. Thirdly, so far as the matters in List II, i.e. the State List are concerned, the State Legislatures alone are competent to legislate on them and only under certain conditions Parliament can do so. It is, therefore, obvious that in such matters repugnancy may result from the following circumstances: 1. Where the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in the Concurrent List are fully inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable, the Central Act will prevail and the State Act will become void in view of the repugnancy. 2. Where however a law passed by the State comes into collision with a law passed by Parliament on an Entry in the Concurrent List, the State Act shall prevail to the extent of the repugnancy and the provisions of the Central Act would become void provided the State Act has been passed in accordance with clause (2) of Article 254. 3. 3. Where a law passed by the State Legislature while being substantially within the scope of the entries in the State List entrenches upon any of the Entries in the Central List the constitutionality of the law may be upheld by invoking the doctrine of pith and substance if on an analysis of the provisions of the Act it appears that by and large the law falls within the four corners of the State List and entrenchment, if any, is purely incidental or inconsequential. 4. Where, however, a law made by the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Concurrent List is inconsistent with and repugnant to a previous law made by Parliament, then such a law can be protected by obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The result of obtaining the assent of the President would be that so far as the State Act is concerned, it will prevail in the State and overrule the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability to the State only. Such a state of affairs will exist only until Parliament may at any time make a law adding to, or amending, varying or repealing the law made by the State Legislature under the proviso to Article 254. So far as the present State Act is concerned we are called upon to consider the various shades of the constitutional validity of the same under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.” 28. In State of Kerala and Ors. v. Mar Appraem Kuri Company Ltd., and Ors, (2012) 7 SCC 106 ], a Five-Member Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, while considering the question of repugnance of the provisions of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 and the Central Chit Funds Act, 1982, after conducting a survey of the earlier judgments, has held as follows at paragraph 97: “Conclusions 97. To sum up, our conclusions are as follows: 97.1. On timing, we hold that repugnancy arises on the making and not commencement of the law, as correctly held in the judgment of this Court in Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum, (1995) 4 SCC 718 ]. 97.2. To sum up, our conclusions are as follows: 97.1. On timing, we hold that repugnancy arises on the making and not commencement of the law, as correctly held in the judgment of this Court in Pt. Rishikesh v. Salma Begum, (1995) 4 SCC 718 ]. 97.2. Applying the above test, we hold that on the enactment of the (Central) Chit Funds Act, 1982, on 19-8-1982, which covered the entire field of “chits” under Entry 7 of List III of the Constitution, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, on account of repugnancy as enshrined in Article 254(1), became void and stood impliedly repealed. That, on the occupation of the entire field of “chits”, the Kerala Legislature could not have enacted the State Finance Act 7 of 2002, inserting Section 4(1)(a) into the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975, particularly on the failure of the State in obtaining Presidential assent under Article 254(2). 97.3. That the (Central) Chit Funds Act, 1982 though not brought into force in the State of Kerala is still a law made, which is alive as an existing law. By reason of Article 367 of the Constitution, the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies to the repeal. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is, therefore, relevant, particularly Sections 6(b) and 6(c), and consequently, the previous operation of the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 is not affected nor any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under that repealed State Act of 1975. Thus, after 19-8-1982, the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 stands repealed except for the limited purposes of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. If and when the Central Government brings into force the Chit Funds Act, 1982 by a notification in State of Kerala, under Section 1(3), Section 90(2) will come into play and thereby the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 shall continue to apply only to chits in operation on the date of commencement of the (Central) Chit Funds Act, 1982 in the same manner as the Kerala Chitties Act, 1975 applied to chits before such commencement.” 29. In Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. In Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts, Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Ors., MANU/SC/0531/2020), the Apex Court has considered the question with respect to the provisions of Pharmacy Act, 1948 and All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and also the question of the special enactment holding the field prior to the introduction of the AICTE Act and it was held at paragraph 15 thus: “15. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and as observed hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act is a Special Act in the field of pharmacy and it is a complete code in itself in the field of pharmacy, the Pharmacy Act shall prevail over the AICTE Act which, as observed hereinabove, is a general statute dealing with technical education/institutions. Therefore, the submission on behalf of AICTE and/or concerned educational institutions that the AICTE Act is a subsequent law and in the definition of "technical education" it includes the "pharmacy" and therefore it can be said to be an "implied repeal", cannot be accepted. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such in the AICTE Act there is no specific repeal of the Pharmacy Act, more particularly when, as observed hereinabove, the Pharmacy Act is a Special Act and the subsequent enactment of AICTE Act is general and therefore the Pharmacy Act being a Special Act must prevail. Apart from that, with regard to several aspects, there is no provision made in AICTE Act which are exclusively within the domain of PCI. Thus, it cannot be accepted that there is 'implied repeal' of the Pharmacy Act. ” 30. Now, we will deal with the cases relating to the practice of alternate medicine and the 'B' class registration ordered to be granted by the State Government. The proposition of law laid down as above by the Apex Court under various contexts taking into account Article 254 of the Constitution of India, is a significant indicator to show that when there is a conflict by and between the Central Legislation and the State Legislation made in accordance with the powers conferred in the subjects enumerated in the concurrent list, the Central Act is to prevail to the extent of repugnance, and the provisions of the State Act to the extent it conflicts with the Central Act would be unconstitutional/void. The State Government has issued a notification dated 17.03.2020 bearing No. GO(P) No. 116/2010/H&FWD of Health and Family Welfare (D) Department, Thruvananthapuram, which reads thus: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Health & Family Welfare Department - Providing registration to self educated Naturopathy practitioners in the State of Kerala - Authorization of Travancore-Cochin Medical Council Registrar to provide 'B' Class registration - Sanctioned - Orders issued. HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (D) DEPARTMENT Thiruvananthapuram, GO (TU16/2010/H&FWD Dated. 17/3/10 Read:- 1. Letter No. R/15016/5/2004/Y&N dated 4/9/2006 from Department of AYUSH, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India 2. G.O. (P) 361/09/H&FWD dated 19/10/2009 ORDER As per the letter read as first paper above, Department of AYUSH, Government of India had prescribed and forwarded guidelines for the registration of Naturopathy practitioners and for the accreditation of Naturopathy Institutions. Consequently vide G.O. read as second paper above, the Registrar, Travancore-Cochin Medical Council had been accorded sanction to provide provisional 'A' Class registration to qualified Naturopaths who satisfy certain specified conditions. Representations have been received from organizations demanding that as recommended by AYUSH Department, self educated Naturopaths who are not institutionally qualified may also be provided registration. Government convened a meeting of the experts in the field to discuss this issue and to evolve guidelines for providing 'B' Class registrations to Naturopaths who are not institutionally qualified. These experts suggested guidelines, based on the central guidelines for providing B Class registration to practicing self educated Naturopaths. Government after having examined the guidelines prepared are pleased to authorize the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council of Indian systems of Medicine to issue provisional 'B' Class registration to practicing Naturopaths who are not institutionally qualified as per conditions detailed below: 1. Registration of Naturopathy and Yoga practitioners will be provisional and will be valid till the constitution of a separate council for Naturopathy and Yoga or suitable amendments to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners' Act, enabling the Council to issue registration to the Naturopathy and Yoga practitioners. 2. Separate Registers for 'A' class and 'B' class Naturopathy practitioners will be maintained by the Registrar, Travancore-Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine. 3. The Registration process will be a onetime measure only. 4 The applicants should have passed SSLC or equivalent, completed 35 years of age and have at least 10 years of full time practice in Naturopathy and Yoga. 5. 3. The Registration process will be a onetime measure only. 4 The applicants should have passed SSLC or equivalent, completed 35 years of age and have at least 10 years of full time practice in Naturopathy and Yoga. 5. A Selection Committee will be constituted by the Government with the following members, for selection of eligible candidates. 1. The President of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council (ISM) 2. The Registrar, Travancore-Cochin Medical Council 3. Director of Indian Systems of Medicine 4. Two eminent, qualified Naturopathy practitioners nominated by the Government 5. A nominee of Central Council for Research in Yoga & Naturopathy 6 Applications are to be invited in the prescribed format along with documentary evidence relating to age, length of practice, educational qualification, professional certificate etc. Experience certificates issued by the District Medical Officers (ISM)should be produced along with the application. After verifying the applications, by the TC Medical Council by means of a field enquiry of the details contained in the application, including the documentary evidence submitted, a written test will be conducted for eligible candidates. Those applicants who score 50% marks and above in the written test will be called for an oral and practical test/interview before the Selection Committee. 50% pass mark should be obtained in the oral and practical test also. List of candidates eligible for registration will be prepared and published by the Selection Committee, based on the performance in the interview. Only those who are included in the final list may be given 'B' class registration. 7. 'B' class registered persons will be entitled to private practice only. 8. No further 'B' class registration shall take place after the completion of the one-time registration process as above. (BY Order of the Governor) Sd/- The Director of Ayurveda Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram The Registrar, TCMC The Director, ISM The Principal Accountant General (Audit), Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram The Accountant General (A&E), Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram (with copy of application) SF/OC This is the true copy of the document marked as Exhibit P2 in the above WPC 31. On a reading of the said Government Order, it is clear that the State Government has decided to issue provisional 'B' Class registration to Naturopaths, who are not institutionally qualified as per the conditions detailed in the said Government Order. Accordingly, the guidelines for the registration of Naturopathy practitioners and accreditation of Naturopath Institution in the State was issued. On a reading of the said Government Order, it is clear that the State Government has decided to issue provisional 'B' Class registration to Naturopaths, who are not institutionally qualified as per the conditions detailed in the said Government Order. Accordingly, the guidelines for the registration of Naturopathy practitioners and accreditation of Naturopath Institution in the State was issued. The preamble of the guidelines specifies that Yoga and Naturopathy, as an integral part of the holistic concept for healing, has got relevance from the very past and now it is widely accepted as a practice all over the world for mental and physical harmony. It is also pointed out there that in our country, there is no unified regulation regarding the practice of Yoga and Naturopathy. It is further stated that the South Indian States like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh have already made suitable legislation for the regulation of Yoga and Naturopathy as a medical practice. It further specifies that the Government of India, vide letter No. R.15016/5-2004-Y&n dated 04.09.2006, directed all the State Governments and Union Territories to enact comprehensive legislation for the regulation of Naturopathy covering the registration of practitioners, the regulation of medical education and all related matters and accordingly, it was recommended to formulate an immediate system for the registration of genuine practitioners in Naturopathy and for the accreditation of Naturopathic institutions. Clause (2) of the guidelines deals with 'definitions' and sub-clause a) defines the word 'Council' to mean 'the Travancore-Cochin Council of Indian Systems of Medicine constituted under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act. Clause b) defines 'Naturopathy' to mean a drugless, non-invasive, system of therapy involving the use of natural materials in its treatments based on the theory of vitality, the theory of toxemia, the theory of self healing capacity of the body and the principles of healthy living. 'Naturopathy Institution' is defined under clause c) to mean (I) Education Institutions conducting the Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences (BNYS) course of any University set up by a statute; (ii) Hospitals; and (ii) clinics. 'Hospital' is defined under Clause d) to mean “a Naturopathy Hospital with 10 in-patient beds and an Out-patient department. 'Clinic' is defined under clause (e) to mean 'Naturopathy and Yoga Centres without out patient department only. 32. Clause 3 deals with registration and accreditation. 'Hospital' is defined under Clause d) to mean “a Naturopathy Hospital with 10 in-patient beds and an Out-patient department. 'Clinic' is defined under clause (e) to mean 'Naturopathy and Yoga Centres without out patient department only. 32. Clause 3 deals with registration and accreditation. Clauses 3 to 7 are relevant to the context and they read thus: 3. Registration and Accreditation (i) Accreditation is the recognition granted to educational institutions, Hospitals and Clinics to signify the attainment of an acceptable level of professional expertise, academic quality and integrity. (ii) ‘Registration’ means the registration of Naturopathic and Yoga Practitioners by the Council of Indian Systems of Medicine in Class ‘A’ or ‘B”. (iii) The Council will grant accreditation to educational institutions on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy, New Delhi and also have the authority to conduct inspections and evaluation visits for the purpose. (iv) Accreditation of Hospitals and Clinics will be for a period of 5 years and will have to be renewed after every five years. 4. Conditions for registration (1) Registration of Naturopathy and Yoga Practitioners will be provisional and will be valid till the constitution of a separate council for Naturopathy and Yoga or suitable amendments to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, enabling the Council to issue registration to the Naturopathy and Yoga practitioners. (2) Separate Registers for 'A' class and 'B' class Naturopathy and Yoga practitioners will be maintained by the Registrar, Travancore-Cochin Medical Councils under the Council of Indian Systems of Medicine. (3) Application, fee for registration etc. for 'A' class registration will be the same as applicable for the registration of a practitioner in the Council. (4) Class 'A' registration will be given to institutionally qualified professional practitioners possessing 4/4 1/2 years Diploma in Naturopathy (N.D) prior to 1990 from Gandhi Naturopathy Medical College, Hyderabad Board of Indian Medicine, Government of Andhra Pradesh/Osmania University, Hyderabad and 5/5 1/2 years BNYS degree (Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yoga Sciences) awarded by the colleges/universities mentioned in the appendix to the G.O.(P) 361/2009/H&FWD dated 19.10.2009. (5)”B” Class registration may be granted to self educated Naturopathy practitioners with the following conditions:- (a) The Registration process must be limited to one chance only. (b) should have passed SSLC or equivalent. (c) Should have completed 35 years of age. (5)”B” Class registration may be granted to self educated Naturopathy practitioners with the following conditions:- (a) The Registration process must be limited to one chance only. (b) should have passed SSLC or equivalent. (c) Should have completed 35 years of age. (d) Should have at least fifteen years of full time practice in Naturopathy and Yoga. Experience certificates issued by the District Medical Officers (ISM) should be produced along with the application. 5. Procedure for applying for B Class registration by Self Educated Practitioners Self Educated Yoga and Naturopathy practitioners may apply for 'B” Class registration in the prescribed application form along with examination fees as fixed by the Council and with documentary evidence to prove age, qualification and experience. 6. Selection Committee The Council may constitute a Selection Committee for conducting inspection for the purpose of selecting self educated practitioners for 'B' class registration in Yoga and Naturopathy consisting of,- (i) The President of the Council (ii) The Registrar, Travancore-Cochin Medical Councils, (iii) Director of Indian Systems of Medicine, (iv) Two senior eminent institutionally qualified Naturopathy practitioners nominated by the Council. 7. Section Procedure (i) All applications received from self educated Yoga and Naturopathy Practitioners shall be verified by means of field enquiry by the Selection Committee Members or by an officer or authority authorized by the Selection Committee. On receipt of enquiry report, the Selection Committee shall conduct a written test to those applicants who are found to be genuine Yoga and naturopathy practitioners. (ii) Selection is on the basis of the performance in a written test adn oral interview conducted by the selection committee. Those scoring 50% of marks in the written test will be called for the interview by the committee. (iii) The Selection Committee shall prepare the list of eligible candidates for registration as 'B' class Yoga and Naturopathy practitioners. (iv) Those who are included in the list alone are eligible for registration and may apply before the Council for 'B' class registration in Yoga and Naturopathy. (v) 'B' Class registered practitioners are entitled to private practice only.” 33. (iii) The Selection Committee shall prepare the list of eligible candidates for registration as 'B' class Yoga and Naturopathy practitioners. (iv) Those who are included in the list alone are eligible for registration and may apply before the Council for 'B' class registration in Yoga and Naturopathy. (v) 'B' Class registered practitioners are entitled to private practice only.” 33. Later, the State Government has issued an order dated 20.01.2011 bearing No. GO(P) 26/2011/H&FWD of Health and Family Welfare (D) Department incorporating an additional condition to condition No.4 contained under the Government Order dated 23.12.2010 specified and extracted above in order to provide provisional 'B' class registration, which reads thus: “Those who have passed 3 year Diploma in Yoga and Naturopathy course from Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam or 3 year Diploma in Nature Cure & Yoga Science from Akhila Bharathiya Prakritik Chikitsa Parishad, New Delhi and Ganhdi Smarak Nidhi, Nidhi, New Delhi, will also be approved for giving Provisional 'B” Class registration. They are also exempted from the requirements of (i) passing any other examination and (ii) 10 years fulltime practice in Naturopathy and Yoga.” It is specified thereunder that G.O.(P) No.116/10/H&FWD dated 17.03.2010 stands modified to the above extent. 34. Yet another notification dated 28.02.2011 was issued by the State Government bearing G.O.(P) NO. 146/2011/H&FWD of Health and Family Welfare (D) Department making further modification to the Government Orders specified above, the relevant portion of which reads thus: “Those who have passed 1 year Diploma course in Naturopathy and Yoga Therapy (DNYT) course conducted by Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam after passing the 3 year Diploma in Naturopathy & Yogic Sciences (ND/DNYS) from Akhila Bharathiya Prakriti Chikitsa Parishad, New Delhi and Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, New Delhi are approved for giving Provisional 'B' Class registration. They are also exempted from the requirements of (i) passing other examinations and (ii) 10 years full time practice in Naturopathy and Yoga.” 35. Therefore, according to the practitioners of alternative medicine as is specified above, by virtue of the Government Orders, they are entitled to get 'B' Class registration also in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time. Therefore, according to the practitioners of alternative medicine as is specified above, by virtue of the Government Orders, they are entitled to get 'B' Class registration also in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time. However, the case projected by the qualified practitioners, who are petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 17507 of 2011, is that when they addressed the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy, New Delhi in respect of the orders issued by the State Government for 'B' class registration of such unqualified practitioners and certificate holders from Akhila Bharathiya Prakriti Chikitsa Parishad, New Delhi and Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi, New Delhi, it was clarified as per Ext.P5 communication dated 21.06.2011 bearing No. CCRYN/Dir/Misc/2011 that in their website it was clearly notified that all such Diplomas issued by the NGOs are unauthorised, baseless and have no value, whatsoever, in the eyes of law. It is further pointed out that the Akhila Bharthiya Prakruthi Chikitsa Parishad is an NGO registered and situated in room at 15, Rajghat Colony, New Delhi – 110 002, which is the original and that there is one more bogus/parallel Akhila Bharathiya Prakruti Chikitsa Parishad at Delhi Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, Patparganj, New Delhi – 110 091, who are involved in such diploma certificates racket. It is further specified thereunder that the Government of India, Department of AYUSH has issued guidelines vide No. R.15016/5/2004-Y&N dated 4th September, 2006 regarding grant of Class B registration to genuine practicing Naturopaths only after proper screening and evaluation by conducting a written examination of 100 marks as also practical and viva for 100 marks. It is also specified that for such screening and evaluation, no certificates or diplomas are considered and earlier in all systems of medicines, whether it is allopathy, ayurveda, homeopathy etc. the genuine practitioners were granted class B registration only after proper screening, evaluation etc., without considering any diplomas issued by the NGOs. 36. Similarly, National Institute of Naturopathy, on the basis of the communication sent by the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, has issued a reply dated 15.03.2011 bearing ref. No. NIN/Gen/2010-11/5364 stating that the Government of India and any organization under it have so far recognised/considered for any purpose including Medical registration or appointments only N.D (Hyderabad) and BNYS degree, as required qualification in Naturopathy, and that any other courses offering certificates or diploma are unrecognised and unauthentic. No. NIN/Gen/2010-11/5364 stating that the Government of India and any organization under it have so far recognised/considered for any purpose including Medical registration or appointments only N.D (Hyderabad) and BNYS degree, as required qualification in Naturopathy, and that any other courses offering certificates or diploma are unrecognised and unauthentic. It is also stated that no monitoring is so far evolved or implemented in conducting any such programmes, by the Government and hence, they are invalid. It is further mentioned thereunder that the Naturopathy in practice with the approved treatment modalities is a clinical medicine, which necessitate a study programme with approved syllabus, regular curriculum and attached teaching hospital. However, a contention is raised by the unqualified practitioners that such communications issued or any other communications issued by the officials of the Government of India can be considered as orders issued under Article 77 of the Constitution of India, since clause (1) of Article 77 clearly specifies that all executive action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President. It is also submitted that all communications issued by the Central Act, 1970 cannot be treated as any orders issued by the Government of India, since they are not issued in the name of the President of India. True, such communications are issued by the respective authorities in their official status and not in the name of the President of India as is contemplated under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. However it is clear from the order extracted above, that it was on the basis of the order of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 04-09- 2006, that the order dated 17-03-2010 was issued by the State Government. But it is significant to note that in the order dated 04-09-2006 it was clearly specified that the issue has been carefully considered and it is felt that the most appropriate course of action would be for the State Governments to enact comprehensive legislation for the regulation of naturopathy, such legislation should ideally cover the registration of practitioners, the regulation of medical education and all related matters. It is also specified that since the enactment of legislation would take some time, it is recommended that a system for the registration of the Naturopathy practitioners and for the accreditation of the naturopathy institutions be put in place immediately on the basis of the guidelines which have been formulated by the Department. Accordingly, it was requested that the State Government take immediate action to enact suitable legislation for the regulation of Naturopathy and in the mean time, it is recommended that a system be set up for the registration of practioners and for the accreditation of institutions on the basis of the guidelines enclosed along with the communication dated 04.09.2006. 37. As per the Guidelines enclosed, clause 1(b) defines 'Naturopathy' institutions to mean (i) Medical Colleges conducting the Bachelor of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences (BNYS) course and postgraduate courses (ii) Hospitals. 'Hospitals' is defined under clause 1(d) to mean a Naturopathy Hospital with minimum of 10 in-patients beds and out-patient department. The registration and accreditation is dealt in clause 2 of the guidelines which reads thus: “2. Registration and Accreditation (a) Accreditation is the recognition granted to educational institutions and hospitals to signify the attainment of an acceptable level of professional expertise, academic quality and integrity. (b) Registration means the registration of Naturopathic practitioners under para 4 of the Guidelines. (c) There will be a competent authority for the grant of Registration and Accreditation in each State and Union Territory to be nominated by the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy (CCRYN). (d) The competent authority will grant Registration and Accreditation on the basis of these guidelines and will have the authority to conduct inspections and evaluation visits for the purpose. (e) Accreditation will be for a fixed period of 5 years and will have to be renewed after the expiry of this period. (f) The registration will be valid throughout the country. (g) The competent authority will notify the date on which the registration and accreditation scheme will come into force.” 38. Registration of Naturopathy Practioners is governed by the clauses 4 to 8 of the Guidelines and they reads thus: 4. (f) The registration will be valid throughout the country. (g) The competent authority will notify the date on which the registration and accreditation scheme will come into force.” 38. Registration of Naturopathy Practioners is governed by the clauses 4 to 8 of the Guidelines and they reads thus: 4. Registration of Naturopathy Practitioners (a) Class "A" registration will be given to institutionally qualified professional practitioners possessing a 4/4 ½ years Diploma in Naturopathy (N.D.) awarded by the Government of Andhra Pradesh/Osmania University OR a 5/5 ½ years Degree in Bachelor of Naturopathy & Yogic Sciences from any University set up by a statute. (b) In exceptional cases, Class -A Registration may also be given as a one time measure to self educated Naturopathic practitioners who are Post-graduates in any subject and who have at least 25 years of working experience in reputed and established Naturopathic hospitals or colleges and who are not less than 45 years of age. (c) In recognition of the fact that there are a significant number of self educated Naturopathy practitioners, Class "B" registration may also be given as a one time measure to self-educated full time Naturopathy practitioners who are not institutionally qualified, are not less than 35 years of age, who have a minimum of 15 years of full time proven clinical experience and who have passed Crass XII or 10 + 2 from a State Board, the CBSE or the ICSE. (d) Those Naturopathy practitioners who have been duly registered under any Statutory State Board will be granted registration in the same category as granted to them by the State Board. 5. Procedure for applying for Class "A" registration in respect Of institutionally qualified practitioners (a) A practitioner who has been awarded a degree or diploma in Naturopathy from any recognized University or Government authority in India may apply for registration to the competent authority in Form A along with documentary evidence of the professional qualification obtained. (b) The competent authority may grant registration to the applicant subject to: (i) the verification of the professional qualification obtained by the applicant from the University concerned; (ii) being satisfied about the professional expertise, the maintenance of ethical standards and professional conduct of the applicant which may be verified by means of a local inquiry. 6. (b) The competent authority may grant registration to the applicant subject to: (i) the verification of the professional qualification obtained by the applicant from the University concerned; (ii) being satisfied about the professional expertise, the maintenance of ethical standards and professional conduct of the applicant which may be verified by means of a local inquiry. 6. Procedure for applying for Class "A" registration in respect of self educated practitioners (a) A self educated practitioner desirous of obtaining Class "A" registration under para 4(b) should, within three months of the Registration scheme coming into force, submit an application in Form B along with documentary evidence relating to age, length of practice, educational qualification, professional qualification, etc. (b) The Experience certificate submitted should be countersigned by the Chief Medical Officer/s of the district/s in which the applicant has practiced. (c) After verification by means of a field enquiry of the details contained in the application including the documentary evidence submitted, the competent authority shall call all the eligible candidates for a written examination consisting of two papers of 100 marks each. (d) Candidates scoring 50 per cent in the aggregate or above in both the papers in the written examination will be allowed to appear for an Oral and Practical examination to be conducted by the competent authority of 50 marks each which would cover the theory and practice of Naturopathy, the minimum pass mark for which would be 50 percent in each. (e) Successful candidates will be awarded a Class "A" registration which will only entitle them to private practice. (f) No further Class "A" registration for self educated practitioners under para 4 (b) shall take place after the completion of the process detailed above. 7. Procedure for applying for Class "B" registration in respect of self educated practitioners (g) A self educated practitioner desirous of obtaining Class "B" registration, should, within three months of the Accreditation scheme coming into force, submit an application in Form C along with documentary evidence relating to age, length of practice, educational qualification, professional qualification, etc. (h) The-Experience certificate submitted should be certified by the Chief Medical Officer/s of the district/s in which the applicant has practiced. (i) After verification by means of a field enquiry of the details contained in the application including the documentary evidence submitted, the competent authority shall call all eligible candidates for a written examination. (h) The-Experience certificate submitted should be certified by the Chief Medical Officer/s of the district/s in which the applicant has practiced. (i) After verification by means of a field enquiry of the details contained in the application including the documentary evidence submitted, the competent authority shall call all eligible candidates for a written examination. (j) Candidates scoring 50 per cent or above in the written examination will be allowed to appear for an Oral and Practical examination of 50 marks each which would cover the theory and practice of Naturopathy, the minimum pass mark for which would be 50 percent in each. (k) Successful candidates will be awarded a Class "B" registration which will only entitle them to private practice. (l) No further Class "6" registration under para 4(c) shall take place after the completion of the process detailed above. 8. Accreditation of Institutions (a) The objectives of the accreditation of institutions are:- (i) To ensure that Naturopathy hospitals offer safe, reliable and quality medical and health care; (ii) To ensure that institutions offering Naturopathy Medical Education are of acceptable academic quality relevant to the health care requirements of the country. (b) Institutions desirous of being accredited should apply to the competent authority in the proforma accompanied by an application fee to be prescribed by the CCRYN. 39. Therefore, on a reading of the Guidelines forwarded by the Government of India, it is clear that registration of practitioners was recommended in accordance with the Guidelines specified above. However, the State Government has not followed the Guidelines and has framed its own Guidelines stating that it has got the power to frame guidelines of its own, since as per the order of the Government of India dated 04.09.2006, it has only recommended to follow the guidelines. As pointed out above, it was also submitted that the order of the Government of India dated 04.09.2006 is not an order issued exercising the powers conferred under Article 77 of the Constitution of India, since the said order is not seen to be issued in the name of the President of India. As pointed out above, it was also submitted that the order of the Government of India dated 04.09.2006 is not an order issued exercising the powers conferred under Article 77 of the Constitution of India, since the said order is not seen to be issued in the name of the President of India. But, in our considered opinion, in the State Government order dated 17.03.2010 ordering registration of the naturopaths is on the basis of the order of the Government of India dated 04.09.2016 and therefore, the State Government or any of the practitioners are not at liberty to contend that they are not bound to follow the orders and the Guidelines issued by the Government of India. Looking from that angle, it is quite clear and evident that the order and the Guidelines issued by the State Government as is specified above is in violation of the directives contained under the order and the Guidelines issued by the Government of India. That apart, Article 256 makes it obligatory that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and the executive power of the union shall extent to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. Further, Article 257(1) stipulates that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the union, and the executive power of the union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. We are also of the opinion that the prohibition contained under Section 38 of the Act, 1953 extends to not only to a person who is not a registered practitioner of modern medicine, homeopathic medicine or ayurvedic medicine, siddha medicine or unani tibbi, but also they are prohibited to practice any other medicine unless is also a registered practitioner of that medicine. Therefore, there is no enabling power under the provisions of the Act, 1953 to the State Government to issue an order directing the Registrar of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine to register the name of the unqualified practitioners in the 'A' and 'B' registers directed to be maintained. 40. Therefore, there is no enabling power under the provisions of the Act, 1953 to the State Government to issue an order directing the Registrar of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine to register the name of the unqualified practitioners in the 'A' and 'B' registers directed to be maintained. 40. On analyzing the contentions put forth by the counsel on either side, we are of the considered opinion that irrespective of the communication issued by the statutory authorities under the Central Act, 1970 and the Department of Ayush, the State Government has issued the orders specified above to grant class 'B' registration to practicing Naturopaths and other system of alternative medicine by making suitable amendments to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 enabling the Council to issue registration to the Naturopathy and Yoga practitioners. It is also clear from the order dated 17.03.2010 of the State Government that separate registers for 'A' class and 'B' class Naturopathy practitioners is directed to be maintained by the Registrar, Travancore-Cochin Medical Council of Indian Systems of Medicine. It is surprising to note that the qualification prescribed under the aforesaid State Government Order for 'B' class registration is that the applicant should have passed SSLC or equivalent, completed 35 years of age and have at least 10 years of full time practice in Naturopathy and Yoga. 41. On a reading of the Government Order, it is clear that the order and guidelines issued by the State Government fixing qualifications contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 are also in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, 1970. As we have discussed earlier, the qualifications are clearly prescribed under the Central Act, 1970 and therefore, any order issued by the State Government contrary to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 cannot be recognised under law. The said Government Orders purportedly issued invoking the powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India cannot be sustained being repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act, and the order dated 04 - 09-2006, which cannot be done, by virtue of the provisions contained under Article 254 of the Constitution of India, as is discussed above. The legal issue with respect to the repugnance is elaborately dealt with while considering the issues governing the unqualified ayurveda practitioners and therefore, it does not require further elucidation. 42. The legal issue with respect to the repugnance is elaborately dealt with while considering the issues governing the unqualified ayurveda practitioners and therefore, it does not require further elucidation. 42. Taking into account all the above legal aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the orders issued by the State Government with respect to exemption from registration by invoking the powers conferred under the first proviso to Section 38 of the Act, 1953 is repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 as is discussed above and therefore, the same is unconstitutional. So also, the Government Orders issued providing registration to the unqualified practitioners of Naturopathy and other alternative medicines are in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act, 1970 and the order of the Government of India and the guidelines specified above, and therefore, unconstitutional and the same are also liable to be quashed. Accordingly, (1) the State Government Orders issued exempting registration for unqualified ayurveda practitioners are quashed; (2) the State Government Orders discussed above issued for registration of unqualified practitioners of Naturopaths and other alternative medicines also will stand quashed; and (3) the first proviso to section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act 1953 is declared Unconstitutional and therefore struck down. 43. Accordingly, W.P.(C) Nos. 21419 and 16400 of 2009, 13589 & 13123 of 2010 and 12533, 6554, 6610, 7658, 8755 of 6503 of 2011 contained in list I-A would stand allowed. W.P.(C) Nos. 25120 and 23398 of 2009, 20823 and 7406 of 2010 and 28222 of 2013 contained in list IB seeking registration of unqualified ayurveda practitioners will stand dismissed. W.P.(C) Nos. 21869 of 2010, 20279 & 20495 of 2011, 29008 of 2013 and 169 of 2017 contained in list II seeking further action on the basis of the Government Orders issued in favour of the unqualified Naturopaths and Practitioners of alternative medicine are dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 17507 of 2011 challenging the Government Orders for registration of unqualified Naturopaths and alternative system of medicine is allowed and all the Government Orders specified above are accordingly quashed.