JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. All the three intra-court appeals have arisen out of a common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions including W.P.[C] no. 180/2019, W.P.[C] no. 05/2020 and W.P.[C] no. 47/2020. 2. As the issues involved and raised are common and all the three intra-court appeals have arisen out of a common Judgment and Order, all the three appeals are taken up for consideration, as sought for and agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The writ appellants in Writ Appeal no. 12/2023 were the writ petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 05/2020. In the writ petition, the writ appellants-writ petitioners have averred that they are Practitioners of Homeopathy on having obtained licences after registered themselves as Class ‘B’ Practitioners in the year : 1997-1998 with the Board of Homeopathic System Medicine, Nagaland [‘the Nagaland Board’, for short] under Section 9 of the Nagaland Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1997 [‘the Nagaland Act’, for short]. It has been averred that they had applied for registration as they were engaged in the practice of Homeopathic System of Medicine in the State of Nagaland for a period of not less than five years immediately before enactment of the Nagaland Act and as such, they were registered and granted licences as Class ‘B’ Homeopathic Practitioners under Section 9 of the Nagaland Act. The petitioners have further averred that they had passed an examination for obtaining the registration as Class ‘B’ Practitioners of Homeopathy. After getting themselves registered with the Nagaland Board, their licences had been renewed from time to time as Class ‘B’ Registered Practitioners on payment of requisite fees upto the year : 2012-2013. It was in the year : 2012-2013 the Nagaland Board stopped renewal of their licences purportedly at the behest of the Central Council of Homeopathy [‘the Central Council’, for short]. The petitioners have further stated that though their names were included in the State Register maintained by the Nagaland Board, their names were not registered in the Register maintained by the Central Council, that is, the Central Council of Homeopathy, which was later renamed as the National Commission for Homeopathy. The petitioners have further stated that though their names were included in the State Register maintained by the Nagaland Board, their names were not registered in the Register maintained by the Central Council, that is, the Central Council of Homeopathy, which was later renamed as the National Commission for Homeopathy. They have further averred that due to non-renewal of their licences by the Nagaland Board, they had no alternative but to leave Nagaland as without renewal, they would not be able to continue their profession as Class ‘B’ Homeopathy Practitioners in the State of Nagaland. 4. The writ appellants in Writ Appeal no. 17/2023 were the writ petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 180/2019. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 180/2019, the petitioners have contended that they received licences as Class ‘B’ Homeopathy Practitioners after their registration under Section 9 of the Nagaland Act with the Nagaland Board. Accordingly, their names continued in the Register, maintained by the Nagaland Board for Class ‘B’ Registered Homeopaths. They have stated that after getting registration with the Nagaland Board they continued their practices as Homeopathic Practitioners in Nagaland independently. During the subsequent years, the Nagaland Board renewed their licences at an interval of five years, from time to time, until 2013. 5. The writ appellants in Writ Appeal 14/2023 were the writ petitioners in W.P.[C] no. 47/2020. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 47/2020, the petitioners have stated their case in an almost identical manner as the petitioners in W.P.[C] no. 180/2019. They have stated that they were in regular practice in the State of Nagaland for a period of not less than five years immediately before the coming into force of the Nagaland Act. They are Registered Class ‘B’ Homeopaths, who were granted licence under Section 9 of the Nagaland Act by the Nagaland Board. 6. All the afore-mentioned writ petitions were preferred to mount a challenge to a Public Notice, published on 10.08.2016 and issued under the hand of the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Health & Family Welfare Department. 7. The writ appellants-writ petitioners have mentioned their addresses in the writ petitions-writ appeals. Noticeably, all of them are not, presently, residents of the State of Nagaland and they have claimed to be residents of States like West Bengal, etc. 8. We have heard Mr. 7. The writ appellants-writ petitioners have mentioned their addresses in the writ petitions-writ appeals. Noticeably, all of them are not, presently, residents of the State of Nagaland and they have claimed to be residents of States like West Bengal, etc. 8. We have heard Mr. R. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners who has appeared though virtual mode, assisted by Mr. Medo Vero, learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal no. 12/2023; and Mr. Pakinrichapbo, learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal no. 14/2023 & Writ Appeal no. 17/2023. We have also heard Mr. Z. Ngulie, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent Union of India; Ms. Livika, learned Junior Government Advocate, Nagaland for the State respondents including the Department of Health and Family Welfare; and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the respondent Board of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Nagaland [‘the Nagaland Board’, for short]. 9. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants in Writ Appeal no. 12/2023 has referred to a number of provisions from the Nagaland Act and the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1972 [‘the Central Act’, for short] to contend that the appellants after being granted the licences as Class ‘B’ Registered Homeopaths, were permitted to get their licences transferred out of Nagaland. He has, however, failed to place any material evidencing permission granted by the State of Nagaland to transfer the licences of the appellants out of the Nagaland and to practice Homeopathy in any State, other than Nagaland. Mr. Roy has also referred to a number of provisions of the Central Act in order to place of his point that the Public Notice is illegal and arbitrary. 10. Mr. Pakinrichapbo, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal no. 14/2023 and Writ Appeal no. 17/2023 has contended that in view of Section 15 [2] [b] of the Central Act, a Class-B Registered Homeopath can be enrolled in the Register maintained by the Central Council and on such enrolment, a Class B Registered Homeopath, whose licence was initially granted by the Nagaland Board, can practice Homeopathy in any State within India. 11. Mr. Mozhui, learned counsel for the Board of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Nagaland [‘the Nagaland Board’] and Ms. Livika, learned State Counsel for the State respondents have submitted in similar lines. 11. Mr. Mozhui, learned counsel for the Board of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Nagaland [‘the Nagaland Board’] and Ms. Livika, learned State Counsel for the State respondents have submitted in similar lines. It has been contended that there is provision in the Nagaland Act under Section 9 to register a person as Class ‘B’ Homeopath provided he fulfils the conditions laid down therein. It has been contended that Clause [a] of Section 10 of the Nagaland Act has made it specific that once a person’s name is registered as a Class ‘B’ Homeopath, he shall receive a licence to practice Homeopathy within the State of Nagaland only, meaning thereby, a registered Class ‘B’ Homeopath, registered and enrolled in the State of Nagaland, cannot practice Homeopathy outside the State of Nagaland. They have contended that the Public Notice dated 10.08.2016 is meant for renewal of the licenses of the registered Class ‘B’ Homeopaths and as the renewal would require verification of some specific documents, the practitioners registered as Class ‘B’ Homeopaths in the Register of the Nagaland Board have been requested to come personally to place the documents mentioned therein for consideration of their cases for renewals. They have submitted that it is not the case of the appellants that they have, in the meantime, registered themselves with any other State Homeopathy Board or the Central Council after validly transferring the licences to practice with due approval of the competent authority in the State of Nagaland. They have contended that the provisions of the Nagaland Act and the Central Act, to which the learned counsel for the appellants have referred to, rather than assisting their case, assist the case of the official respondents. 12. All the writ petitions were structured on the premise that Section 15 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 [‘the Central Act’] has conferred upon those persons who are possessing the qualification included in the Second Schedule and the Third Schedule of the Central Act, the right to be enrolled in the Register of the Central Council and as such enrolled persons, to practice Homeopathy in any State of India. The Public Notice issued by the State of Nagaland has created a bar to practice in the State of Nagaland for those Homeopathy Practitioners, who are not the permanent residents of Nagaland and the embargo so created is not in conformity with the letter and spirit of the provision contained in sub-section [2][b] of Section 15 of the Central Act. It is contended that no executive order like the impugned Public Notice can override any statutory provision. The Public Notice has affected and invaded the rights of petitioners to practice Homeopathy in any part of India. 13. We have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on records by the parties through their pleadings. We have also gone through the common Judgment & Order dated 20.09.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petition including the writ petitions wherefrom these three intra-court appeals have arisen. We have also gone through the provisions of the Nagaland Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1996 [‘the Nagaland Act’] and the Homeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 [‘the Central Act’], referred to by the learned counsel for the parties extensively during the course of their submissions. 14. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the official respondents, it appears apposite to reproduce the contents of the Public Notice dated 10.08.2016 in its entirety :- GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT No. HFW-22/BHSM/2011/144 Dated Kohima the 10 th of August, 2016 PUBLIC NOTICE The Nagaland State Government in consonance with Section 24 of the Nagaland Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1996 [Act IV of 1997] which confers the exercise of powers to the State Government to make rules from time to time consistent with the Act, invites for Renewal of Class B Homeopaths registered in the Board of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Nagaland within 3 [three] months starting from August, 2016. They are to come personally for verification with all required / relevant documents of qualification and practice. Section 10 Clause [i] of the Homeopathic Medicine Act, 196 [Act No. 4 of 1997] states that the registered homeopaths shall receive licenses to practice homeopathy in the State of Nagaland provided the Class B practitioner qualifies the following :- [a] Those are presently practicing homeopathy in Nagaland. Section 10 Clause [i] of the Homeopathic Medicine Act, 196 [Act No. 4 of 1997] states that the registered homeopaths shall receive licenses to practice homeopathy in the State of Nagaland provided the Class B practitioner qualifies the following :- [a] Those are presently practicing homeopathy in Nagaland. [b] Those who were residing in Nagaland during the time of their registration by providing the following original documents as proof of their residency in the State :- [i] Permanent Residence Certificate issued by the respective district administrative authority of the Government of Nagaland. [ii] Address proof of their clinic/place of practice by the Colony/locality Gaonbura or local authority. [iii] Trade license from the local authority [As a proof of your practice from year to year. Further, all the practitioners have to bring a Character Certificate duly signed by a First Class Magistrate [in prescribed format]. All the candidates will be put through an eligibility/efficiency test before renewal is considered. 15. From a bare perusal of the Public Notice [supra], it is discernible that the Public Notice has been issued under Section 10 of the Nagaland Act. By the Public Notice, Class ‘B’ Registered Homeopaths were requested to renew their registration with the Nagaland Board within a period of three months, starting from August, 2016, by coming personally along with all the required/relevant documents of qualification and practice for verification. 16. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the official respondents that the Public Notice dated 10.08.2016 is published primarily for the purpose of renewal of licences of the Class ‘B’ Homeopaths registered with the Nagaland Board, who were registered under Section 9 and were granted licences under Section 10 of the Nagaland Act. 17. The Nagaland Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1996 [‘the Nagaland Act’] has been enacted to provide for the development of the Homoeopathic System of Medicine and its control by the State of Nagaland. As per sub-section 2[f], ‘registered homeopath’ means a person who practices the Homoeopathic System of Medicine as his principal occupation and who is registered under the provisions of the Nagaland Act. 18. Section 9 of the Nagaland Act has provided for recognition and registration two classes of Homeopaths. As per Section 9, there shall be two classes of registered Homeopaths, namely, Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’. 18. Section 9 of the Nagaland Act has provided for recognition and registration two classes of Homeopaths. As per Section 9, there shall be two classes of registered Homeopaths, namely, Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’. With regard to Class ‘B’ Homeopath, it is prescribed that one who has been engaged in the practice of Homoeopathic System of Medicine as the principal occupation for a period of not less than five years immediately before the date of the coming into force of the Nagaland Act, can be registered as Class ‘B’ Homeopath, provided the person passes an examination to be held by the Board in the manner provided by regulation upon an application for registration of his name, to be made within a period of two years from the date of coming into force of the Nagaland Act. 19. The appellants herein have claimed that they were initially registered as Class ‘B’ Homeopaths with the Nagaland Board under Section 9 of the Nagaland Act immediately after coming into force of the Nagaland Act. The appellants have also claimed that there were renewals from time to time of their Class ‘B’ Homeopath licences until 2013, when a dispute arose, though such documents regarding Class ‘B’ licences and renewals are not part of the case records. During the year, 2012-2013, as mentioned above, for certain reason, the licences of the appellants were not renewed by the Nagaland Board. In any view of the matter, non-renewal of Class ‘B’ licences subsequent to 2013 is not a bone of contention herein as it is the authority to issue the Public Notice dated 10.08.2016, which is challenged in the concerned writ petitions and consequently, in these intra-court appeals. 20. Clause [a] of Section 10 of the Nagaland Act has provided for the manner of registration of Homeopaths. As per Clause [a], if it appears to the Board that a person is qualified to have his name entered in the Register as a Class ‘A’ Homeopath, his name can be entered in the Register on payment of the requisite fee. It has further prescribed that if a person is qualified to have his name entered in the Register as a Class ‘B’ Homeopath, then his name can be so entered in the Register on payment of the requisite fee and he will receive a licence to practice Homeopathy in the State of Nagaland. It has further prescribed that if a person is qualified to have his name entered in the Register as a Class ‘B’ Homeopath, then his name can be so entered in the Register on payment of the requisite fee and he will receive a licence to practice Homeopathy in the State of Nagaland. Thus, Clause [a] of Section 10 has stipulated that on payment of the first annual fee, a Class ‘B] Homeopath will receive a licence to practice Homeopathy in the State of Nagaland. Clause [b] of Section 10 has provided that for renewal of the registered Homeopaths – both Class ‘A’ and Class ‘B’ – on payment of the requisite renewal fees. 21. At this juncture, it is necessary to find out about the persons who can be registered as Class ‘A’ Homeopaths under Section 9 of the Nagaland Act. Section 9 of the Nagaland Act has laid down the qualification for persons who are eligible to be registered as Class ‘A’ Homeopaths in the following manner :- Class A [i] One who is a registered Medical practitioner under any statutory Act of Parliament or Legislature of any State in the country, practicing exclusively Homeopathy. [ii] One who is a Homeopathic Medical practitioner holding degree from a foreign country which entitles him to practice medicine in his country subject to the condition that the institution is approved as suitable for the purpose by the Board of Homeopathic Medicine. [iii] One who is a Homeopathic Medical practitioner who has successfully gone through at least five years course in any Homeopathy Institution recognised by the State in which the institution is situated and holding a degree or diploma from the Institution, subject to the condition that the standard or diploma from the Institution subject to the condition that the standard of qualification is not lower than the standard that would be required for registration by the Nagaland Homeopathic Board. 22. It is not the case of the appellants that they possess the qualifications to register themselves as Class ‘A’ Homeopaths with the Nagaland Board under Section 9 of the Nagaland Act. 23. 22. It is not the case of the appellants that they possess the qualifications to register themselves as Class ‘A’ Homeopaths with the Nagaland Board under Section 9 of the Nagaland Act. 23. As the learned counsel for the appellants have extensively relied on the provision of Section 15 of the Central Act, the provisions of Section 15 of the Central Act are reproduced hereinbelow, for ready reference :- Rights of persons possessing qualifications included in Second or the Third Schedule to be enrolled : 15.[1] Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, any medical qualification included in the Second or the Third Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Homoeopathy. [2] No person, other than a practitioner of Homoeopathy who possesses a recognised medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Homoeopathy — [a] shall hold office as Homoeopathic 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 Homoeopathy in any State; [c] shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by an law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; [d] shall be entitled to give any evidence at any inquest or court of law as an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on any matter relating to Homoeopathy. [3] Nothing contained in sub-section [2] shall affect — [a] the right of a practitioner of Homoeopathy enrolled on a State Register of Homoeopathy to practise Homoeopathy in any State merely on the ground that, on the commencement of this Act, he does not possess a recognised medical qualification; [b] the privileges [including the right to practise Homoeopathy] conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Homoeopathy for the time being in force in any State, on a practitioner of Homoeopathy enrolled on a State Register of Homoeopathy; [c] the right of a person to practise Homoeopathy in a State in which, on the commencement of this Act, a State Register of Homoeopathy is not maintained if, on such commencement, he has been practising Homoeopathy for not less than five years; [d] the rights conferred by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [including the right to practise medicine as defined in clause [f] of Section 2 of the said Act] or the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 of persons possessing any qualifications included in the respective 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. 24. As per sub-section [1] of Section 15 of the Central Act, any medical qualification included in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Homeopathy. From sub-section [1] of Section 15 of the Central Act, it is clear that a person possessing any of the medical qualifications included in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule has the right to be enrolled on any State Register of Homeopathy. As a corollary, a person who does not have any of the medical qualifications included in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule is not eligible for enrolment on any State Register of Homeopathy. As per Clause [b] of sub-section [2] of Section 15, no person other than a practitioner of Homeopathy, who possesses a recognized medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Homeopathy can practice Homeopathy in any State. As per Clause [b] of sub-section [2] of Section 15, no person other than a practitioner of Homeopathy, who possesses a recognized medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Homeopathy can practice Homeopathy in any State. From the said provision of Section 15 [2][b], it is evident that to practice Homeopathy in any State, a person has to meet the twin requirements, firstly, he must have to possess a recognized medical qualification; and secondly, he must have been enrolled on a State Register. 25. By sub-section [3] of Section 15, it is provided that nothing contained in sub- section [2] will affect - [a] the right of a practitioner of Homeopathy enrolled on a State Register of Homeopathy to practice Homeopathy in any State merely on the ground that on the commencement of this Act, he does not possesses a recognised medical qualification; [b] the privileges [including the right to practice Homeopathy] conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Homeopathy for the time being in force in any State on a Practitioner of Homeopathy enrolled on a State Register of Homeopathy; [c] the right of a person to practice Homeopathy in a State in which on the commencement of this Act, a State Register of Homeopathy is not maintained if on such commencement, he has been practising Homeopathy for not less than five years; and [d] the rights conferred by or under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [including the right to practice medicine as defined in clause [f] of Section 2 of the said Act] or the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 of persons possessing any qualifications included in the respective schedules to the said Act. 26. It is now turn to have a look at the meaning of the expression, ‘recognized medical qualification’, which is defined in Section 2[g] of the Central Act. As per Section 2[g], ‘recognized medical qualification’ means any of the medical qualifications in Homeopathy included in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule to the Central Act. 27. It is not the case of the appellants that any of them possesses any recognised medical qualification, from any of the Universities, Boards or Medical Institutions, found mentioned in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule to the Central Act. 27. It is not the case of the appellants that any of them possesses any recognised medical qualification, from any of the Universities, Boards or Medical Institutions, found mentioned in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule to the Central Act. Though the appellants by virtue of their purported enrolment on the Register of the Nagaland Board, could claim that they fulfil one of the twin requirements set forth in Section 15 [2][b], yet, they are not eligible to practice Homeopathy in any State, other than the State of Nagaland, as they lack a recognised medical qualification. 28. Sub-section [3][a] of Section 15 has referred to those practitioners who practiced Homeopathy prior to commencement of the Central Act. Evidently, the appellants do not fall in the category of persons mentioned in sub-section [3][a] of Section 15 of the Central Act. Sub-section 3[b] of Section 15 permits the practitioners of Homeopathy like the appellants who are registered with the Nagaland Board, to continue practice Homeopathy as per the licence granted to them whereby their practices are made limited within the State of Nagaland. Clause [c] and Clause [d] of sub-section [3] of Section 15 of the Central Act are not applicable to the case of the appellants. The specific case of the appellants is that they used to engage themselves in the practice of Homeopathic System of Medicine as the principal occupation for a period of not less than five years immediately before the date of coming into force the Nagaland Act. 29. Chapter-IV of the Central Act has the nominal heading, ‘the Central Register of Homeopathy’. Section 21 and Section 26 contained in Chapter-IV, read as under :- The Central Register of Homeopathy 21.[1] The Central Council shall cause to be maintained in the prescribed manner a register of practitioners of Homoeopathy to be known as the Central Register of Homoeopathy which shall contain. [a] in Part I, the names of all persons who are for the time being enrolled on any State Register of Homoeopathy and possess any of the recognized medical qualifications. [b] in Part II, the names of all persons, other than those included in Part I, who are for the time being enrolled on any State Register of Homoeopathy. [a] in Part I, the names of all persons who are for the time being enrolled on any State Register of Homoeopathy and possess any of the recognized medical qualifications. [b] in Part II, the names of all persons, other than those included in Part I, who are for the time being enrolled on any State Register of Homoeopathy. [2] It shall be the duty of the Registrar of the Central Council to keep and maintain the Central Register of Homoeopathy accordance with 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 and may be proved by a copy published in the Gazette of India. Privilege of persons who are enrolled on the Central Register of Homeopethy. 26. [1] Subject to the conditions and restrictions laid down in this Act regarding practice of Homoeopathy by persons possessing certain recognized medical qualifications, every person whose name is for the time being borne on Part I of the Central Register of Homoeopathy shall be entitled according to his qualifications to practice Homoeopathy in any part of India and to recover in due course of law in respect of such practice any expenses, charges in respect of such practice any expenses, charges in respect of medicaments of other appliances or any fees to which he may be entitled. [2] Subject to the provisions of sub-section [3] of Section 15 any person whose name is for the time being borne on Part II of the Central Register of Homoeopathy, may practise Homoeopathy in any State, other than the State where he is enrolled on the State Register of Homoeopathy with the previous approval of the Government of the State where he intendeds to practise. 30. Clause [a] of sub-section [1] of Section 21 of the Central Act also mentions of the twin requirements, as mentioned in Clause [b] of sub-section [2] of Section 15. 30. Clause [a] of sub-section [1] of Section 21 of the Central Act also mentions of the twin requirements, as mentioned in Clause [b] of sub-section [2] of Section 15. As found from the discussion above, the appellants do not meet the twin requirements, laid down in Clause [a] of sub-section [1] of Section 21 and therefore, they are not eligible to get themselves registered as practitioners of Homeopathy in Part I of the Central Register of Homeopathy. By virtue of sub-section [1] of Section 26, a practitioner of Homeopathy, who possesses a recognized medical qualification and whose name is enrolled in Part-I of the Central Register of Homeopathy can practice Homeopathy in any part of India. 31. As per Clause [b] of sub-section [1] of Section 21 of the Central Act, a practitioner of Homeopathy whose name, for the time being, is enrolled on any State Register of Homeopathy, can register himself as practitioner of Homeopathy in Part-II of the Central Register of Homeopathy, subject to his fulfilling the conditions prescribed in sub-section [3] of Section 15 and sub-section [2] of Section 26 of the Central Act. As per sub-section [2] of Section 26 subject to the provisions of sub- section [3] of Section 15, any person whose name is for the time borne on Part-II of the Central Register of Homeopathy, may practice Homeopathy in any State, other than the State where he is enrolled on the State Register of Homeopathy, with the previous approval of the Government of the State where he intends to practice. Thus, the appellants who have shifted out of the State of Nagaland to other States, would require to obtain previous approval from the State Government of that particular State where they intend to practice Homeopathy and get their names registered in Part II of the Central Register of Homeopathy, maintained as per Clause [b] of sub-section [1] of Section 21 of the Central Act. None of the appellants have placed any tangible materials to show that they have obtained previous approval of any State Government, other than the State of Nagaland, to practice Homeopathy in any State, other than Nagaland. None of the appellants have placed any tangible materials to show that they have obtained previous approval of any State Government, other than the State of Nagaland, to practice Homeopathy in any State, other than Nagaland. The appellants have not been able to show that they fulfill the conditions required under the Central Act to practice in any State, other than the State where they had registered themselves as Class ‘B’ Homeopaths, because of their lack of any recognized medical qualification in terms of Section 2[g] of the Central Act. The only conclusion which emerges is that the appellants are required to renew their licences as Class ‘B’ Registered Homeopaths only in the State of Nagaland. 32. The State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition filed during the writ petition have explained in detail the reasons as to why the issuance of Public Notice is necessitated. The learned Single Judge in the common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2023 have taken note of such factual background. The National Commission for Homeopathy has filed a counter affidavit in Writ Appeal no. 12/2023 wherein by referring to the various provisions of the Central Act, it has been contended that the appellants are not entitled to practice Homeopathy in any State, other than the State granting them the licences. Reflection of those facts in detail in this order would only weight to it. Thus, we deem it proper to not reiterate those facts. 33. On a combined analysis of the provisions of the Nagaland Act and the Central Act, we find that the contentions advanced by the appellants are not merited. 34. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons assigned therein, we do not find any infirmity in the Public Notice dated 10.08.2016, whereby, the Class ‘B’ Homeopaths registered in the State of Nagaland have been requested to renew their licences, which, for one reason or the other, were not renewed since 2013, by submission of the requisite documents, mentioned therein, and by appearing personally. The Nagaland Act has been enacted for the development of the Homeopathic System of Medicine and its control by the State Government of Nagaland, meaning thereby, the Public Notice which is issued for renewal of the Class ‘B’ Homeopath licences is a measure towards controlling the Homeopathic System of Medicine. The Nagaland Act has been enacted for the development of the Homeopathic System of Medicine and its control by the State Government of Nagaland, meaning thereby, the Public Notice which is issued for renewal of the Class ‘B’ Homeopath licences is a measure towards controlling the Homeopathic System of Medicine. We have, therefore, found ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in the common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2023. 35. If any of the appellants is interested to renew his licence granted to him as Class ‘B’ Homeopath by the Nagaland Board, he is at liberty to approach the competent authority for such renewal in terms of the Public Notice dated 10.08.2016 and in accordance with the provisions of the Nagaland Act. If such approach is made, the competent authority under the Nagaland Act shall consider the case of such appellant on its own merits and strictly in terms of the provisions of the Nagaland Act and the Central Act. 36. Summing up, all the writ appeals are found to be bereft of any merits. Consequently, they are liable to be dismissed. They are accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.