# UDAI SINGH DAGAR AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2007] 6 S.C.R. 707
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007-05-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2537 of2007
- **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, Markandey Ka Tju
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/udai-singh-dagar-and-ors-v-union-of-india-and-ors-23056
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

B
Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984.
Sections 2(e), 2(j), 2(g), 3, 15, 22, 23, 30 and 67-Par/iament enacting
Act regulating veterinary practice-Central Act inter alia providing for C
establishment of a Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils
and maintenance of registers of veterinary practitioners-Only registered
veterinary practitioner entitled to practice-States issuing notification under
the Central Act-Notifications and Section 30 of the Central Act challenged
by non-graduate veterinary practitioners divested of their right to practice D
under the Central Act-Held, Article 19(6) provides that qualifications can
be laid down for practicing any profession or for carrying any trade in the
interest of general public-Provisions contained in section 30 of the Central
Act constitute reasonable restriction within the meaning of the first part of
Article 19(6)-Bombay Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1953-Sections 14, 19,
24 and 25-Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971-Sections 15, E
18(1) and (2), 23, 26, 33, 37 and 38-The Maharashtra Veterinary
Practitioners (Conditions for registration of persons actually conducting
veterinary practice) Regulations 1981-Regulation 3-Constitution of India,
1950-Article 19(/)(g), 19(6) and 252(1).
General Clauses Act, 1897-Section 6-Whether applicable to F
veterinary practice-Petitioners contending that rights and liabilities accrued
prior to coming into force of the Central Act saved and diploma holders on
the register maintained by the State entitled to continue practice-Held, a
right whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right can be held to be
protected provided the right survives-The right of petitioners to practice in G
the field of veterinary practice has expressly been taken away by the Central
Act-In the facts, held, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act not ipso facto
applicable-Section 67.
The State of Bombay enacted Bombay Veterinary Practitioners Act,
707
fl
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 6 S.C.R.
A 1953 for regulating matters relating to veterinary practice in the then State
of Bombay as also the requisition in the service of the State appointments for
the purpose of veterinary duties. The 1953 Act provided for maintenance of
the register of the veterinary practitioners. The State of Bombay was
bifurcated into the State of Maharashtra and the State of Gujarat. The State
of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act 1971.
B Section 15 of the 1971 Act mandates the State to cause a register to be
prepared for veterinary practitioners of the State and maintained in such form
as may be directed. The register is contain the name, address and qualification
of every person registered thereunder together with the date on which such
qualification was acquired. Section 37 of the 1971 Act provides for a rule
C making power whereas Section 38 thereof provides for regulation making
power. The State of Maharashtra in exercise of its power conferred upon it
under Sub-section (l) of Section 38 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 18
of the 1971 Act made regulations known as "The Maharashtra Veterinary
Practitioners (Conditions for registration of persons actually conducting
veterinary practice) Regulations 1981."
D
The subject of veterinary practice is a State subject. The States of
Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, however, adopted
a resolution purported to be in terms of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the
Constitution oflndia requesting the Union of India to make a parliamentary
E legislation to the effect that the matter may be regulated in those States by
Parliamentary Act. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said resolution,
Parliament enacted the Indian Veterinary Council Act, (the Central Act). It
was enacted with a view to regulate veterinary practice and to provide, for
that purpose for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of India State
Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of the veterinary
F practi

## Text

_Characters 0–39,093 of 87,083. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39093 for what follows._

UDAI SINGH DAGAR AND ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MAY 15, 2007
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
B
Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984.
Sections 2(e), 2(j), 2(g), 3, 15, 22, 23, 30 and 67-Par/iament enacting
Act regulating veterinary practice-Central Act inter alia providing for C
establishment of a Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils
and maintenance of registers of veterinary practitioners-Only registered
veterinary practitioner entitled to practice-States issuing notification under
the Central Act-Notifications and Section 30 of the Central Act challenged
by non-graduate veterinary practitioners divested of their right to practice D
under the Central Act-Held, Article 19(6) provides that qualifications can
be laid down for practicing any profession or for carrying any trade in the
interest of general public-Provisions contained in section 30 of the Central
Act constitute reasonable restriction within the meaning of the first part of
Article 19(6)-Bombay Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1953-Sections 14, 19,
24 and 25-Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971-Sections 15, E
18(1) and (2), 23, 26, 33, 37 and 38-The Maharashtra Veterinary
Practitioners (Conditions for registration of persons actually conducting
veterinary practice) Regulations 1981-Regulation 3-Constitution of India,
1950-Article 19(/)(g), 19(6) and 252(1).
General Clauses Act, 1897-Section 6-Whether applicable to F
veterinary practice-Petitioners contending that rights and liabilities accrued
prior to coming into force of the Central Act saved and diploma holders on
the register maintained by the State entitled to continue practice-Held, a
right whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right can be held to be
protected provided the right survives-The right of petitioners to practice in G
the field of veterinary practice has expressly been taken away by the Central
Act-In the facts, held, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act not ipso facto
applicable-Section 67.
The State of Bombay enacted Bombay Veterinary Practitioners Act,
707
fl
708
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 6 S.C.R.
A 1953 for regulating matters relating to veterinary practice in the then State
of Bombay as also the requisition in the service of the State appointments for
the purpose of veterinary duties. The 1953 Act provided for maintenance of
the register of the veterinary practitioners. The State of Bombay was
bifurcated into the State of Maharashtra and the State of Gujarat. The State
of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act 1971.
B Section 15 of the 1971 Act mandates the State to cause a register to be
prepared for veterinary practitioners of the State and maintained in such form
as may be directed. The register is contain the name, address and qualification
of every person registered thereunder together with the date on which such
qualification was acquired. Section 37 of the 1971 Act provides for a rule
C making power whereas Section 38 thereof provides for regulation making
power. The State of Maharashtra in exercise of its power conferred upon it
under Sub-section (l) of Section 38 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 18
of the 1971 Act made regulations known as "The Maharashtra Veterinary
Practitioners (Conditions for registration of persons actually conducting
veterinary practice) Regulations 1981."
D
The subject of veterinary practice is a State subject. The States of
Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, however, adopted
a resolution purported to be in terms of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the
Constitution oflndia requesting the Union of India to make a parliamentary
E legislation to the effect that the matter may be regulated in those States by
Parliamentary Act. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said resolution,
Parliament enacted the Indian Veterinary Council Act, (the Central Act). It
was enacted with a view to regulate veterinary practice and to provide, for
that purpose for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of India State
Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of the veterinary
F practitioners and for matters connected therewith. Although the Central Act
came into force in 1984, several States did not adopt the same. On or from
1997, the Central Act was made applicable to the States ofHaryana, Bihar,
Orissa, Himachal Pradesh dnd Rajasthan and all Union Territories. The State
of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 26th August, 1997 in terms of
Section 30 of the Central Act specifying minor veterinary services to be
G rendered by the Veterinary Science Certificate or Diploma holders in the
Government Service or in Semi-Government organizations.
Appellant association representing the Veterinary Practitioners of the
State of Maharashtra filed writ petition in the High Court regarding
H applicability of Section 30 of the Central Act and inter alia seeking declaration
-I
)>-..
-,.
-v
~
~
~
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1.
709
that non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners are eligible to practice Veterinary A
medicine as they were practicing prior to coming into force of the Central
Act in the State of Maharashtra which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence
this appeal by the Association Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitutions of India has been filed by petitioners representing similarly
placed veterinary practitioners from several States and Union Territories of
India against the Union oflndia as also the concerned States praying inter B
alia for revoking and declaring notification issued ~y the respective State
Governments in terms of Section 30 of the Central Act as void.
Petitioners-appellant inter alia contended that veterinary practitioners
possessing 'diploma in veterinary science' or 'certificate in veterinary c
science' which were recognized by the State of Maharashtra and some other
States could not have been divested of their right to practice by reason of the
Central Act and they had a fundamental right in terms of Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution to carry on veterinary practice or continue to be in the
service of the State and any restriction placed on such rights should not only
be a reasonable one but also in public interest and the Central Act, insofar as D
it purports to take away such right to practice or to be continued in service,
thus, imposes an unreasonable restriction interfering with their fundamental
right; that having regard to the provisions of Section 67 of the Central Act,
the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act having been made
applicable, the rights and liabilities accrued prior to coming into force of the E
Central Act must be held to be saved and those diploma holders who were on
the register maintained by the State are entitled to continue practice; that
there exists an inconsistency insofar as whereas under the Central Act only
the degree holders are entitled to be enrolled in the register maintained by
the Central Council but the State Act recognizes the diploma and certificate
holders also; and that in terms of Section 6(l)(c) of the General Clauses Act F
not only a vested or accrued right but also an inchoate right is protected.
Respondents-Union and the States inter alia contended that the State
for maintaining better standard in profession can lay down qualification which
need not satisfy the rest of public importance particularly in view of the fact
G
that the Parliament or the States by making suitable enactments can always
lay down the qualifications for carrying on any profession; that keeping in
view the number of veterinary colleges which have been opened in the states,
the services of a large number of degree holders can be utilized therefor and
in fact thousands of such degree holders were still unemployed; that there
exists a distinction between simple repeal of an Act substituted by another H
710
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 6 S.C.R.
.- -
-
-
\
. . .
-
A and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would have no application as the
Central Act intended to bring about a new sitllation, the same would ipso facto
be a pointer to the fact that both the Central Act and the State Act c~nnot
stand together.
B
c
·Dismissing the writ petition and appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Sub-clause (g) of clause (I) of Article 19 of the Constitution
of India confers a fundamental right to practice any profession or to earry on
any occupation, trade or business. ClauS<S (6) of Article 19 is in two parts. It
empowers Parliament and the State Legislature to impose reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the sub-clauses (g) of
Clause (I) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India in the interest of the
general public. The second part of the said provision provides that in particular
nothing therein shall affect the operation of an existing law insofar as it
relates to or prevents the State from making any law inter alia relating to
the profession or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any
D profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business. By reason of a
statute-law, therefore, undoubtedly, qualifications can be laid down inter alia
for practicing any profession or to carry OD any ~ccupation. Such
qualifications bad been laid down by the State Act. If by reason of the central
Act, a higher qualification bas been laid down, the same would primafacie be
.E
presumed to have been enacted in the interest of the general public. Any
profession which deah with the life of a human being or an animal may be
regulated or controlled. Essential qualifications can be down for the purpose
of entry in the State services.
[Paras 28, 29, 30 and 32) (727-A-B; F-H; 728-A..C)
F
. 2. The validity of a statute would ordinarily be tested keeping in view
the social conditions as were existing on the date of coming into force thereof.
It is one thing to say that a law causes hardship to a section of the people but
it is another thing to say that the same would be unconstitutional It may be
that with the passage of time, a statute which was intra vires on the date of
coming into force of the Act may be considered to be ultra vires. However, for
G that there should be sufficient materials which are either brought on record
or of which the court can take judicial notice. The difficulty would arise where
the materials brought on record may provide for divergent views. In such a
situation, the court will not ordinarily ex~rcise its power of judicial review·
over legislation. The facts on the basis whereof the Legislature of a State or
H the Parliament bad chosen to rely upon should be the guidi~g factor. The
,
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1.
711
Legislature of Executive can have several choices or option should have been A
preferred. (Para 35) (729-A-C(
3. Even in the matter of laying down of qualification by a statute, the
restriction imposed as envisaged under second part of Clauses (6) of Article
19 of the Constitution of India must be construed being in consonance with
the interest of the general public. The tests laid down stand satisfied.
B
(Para 39( (730-B(
State of Madras v. V.G. Row. (1952) SCR 597, Saghir Ahmadv. The State
of U.P. and Ors .. AIR (1954) SC 728; Akadasi Padhan v. State ofOrissa. [1963(
Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691; Mis. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. and Anr., etc. v. C
State of Orissa and Ors., AIR (1991) SC 672; State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Ors., AIR (1984) SC 326; Tinsukhia Electric Supply
Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors., [1989) 3 SCC 709; Utkal Contractors
and Joinery {P) Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR (1987) SC 2310,
Rasbihari Panda and Ors. v. The State of Orissa, AIR (1969) SC 1081;
Amritsar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR (1969) SC 1100 and Dr. D
Mukhtiar Chand and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 579
etc., referred to.
4. The provisions contained in Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary
Council Act, 1984 constitute a reasonable restriction within meaning of the
first part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution oflndia and the fundamental E
rights under Article 19(1)(g) thereof. (Para 51) (734-C-D)
5. It is one thing to say that laying down such qualification or taking
away the right of the practitioners to continue their practice is unconstitutional
but it is another thing to say the same cannot be given retrospective effect. A
statute does not operate retrospectively only because a person's right to F
continue in profession comes to an end. A person will have a right to enter
into a profession and continue therewith provided he holds the requisite
qualification. As and when a qualification is laid down by a law within the
meaning of Sub-clause (g) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of
India, the same would come into effect. In other words, it would act prospectively G
and, thus, not retrospectively, inasmuch as the practice he had already enjoyed
is not taken away. (Paras 53 and 54) [734-E-G)
Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health.
Delhi Admn. Service and Ors., [1997( 11 SCC 687, relied on.
H
A
B
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 6 S.C.R.
6. The General Clauses Act, 1897 governs Parliamentary Acts. The
subject matter of the legislation is a state legislation. The Central Government
stepped in only because of the resolutions adopted the Central Government
by other States at a later stage, viz., 1997. Section 6 of the General clauses
Act, therefore, was referred to in Section 67 of the Central Act creating a
legal fiction as if both the Central Act and the State Act are enacted by the
Parliament. In absence of such a legal fiction raised, the provisions of either
the General Clauses Act, 1897 or the respective State General Clauses Act
would have no application. It, therefore, does not create any right. It does not
make Section 6 of the General Clauses Act ipso facto applicable. Section 6
of the General Clauses Act would be attracted but it would have no application
C if a different intention appears. (Para 58) (735-G-H; 736-A-B)
7. Veterinary services in terms of the Central Act is in two Parts (1)
Veterinary services and (2) minor veterinary services. What would be the
minor veterinary services has been laid down by reason of a notification issued
by the respective State Governments in exercise of their power under clause
D (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Once such a notification has been issued,
indisputably, those who are not otherwise entitled to resort to veterinary
practices within the meaning of the Central Act can be asked to perform the
jobs of minor veterinary services. (Para 60) (736-D-E)
8. A distinction exists between a repeal simpliciter and a repeal by an
E Act which is substituted be another Act. The legal position as to where there
is a repeal of an enactment and simultaneously re-enactment whether the
renacted enactment manifests an intension imcompatible with or contrary to
the provision of the repeal statute has to be ascertained upon consideration of
all the relevant provisions of the re-enacted enactment. This is no longer res
F integra.
(Paras 61 and 65) (736-E-F; 738-F)
~
State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh, (1995) 1 SCR 893; Gammon India Ltd
~
v. Special Chief Secretary and Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 354 and India Tobacco
Co. Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavanipore and Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 512,
G relied on.
9. Whether such a right is protected or not must be considered having
regard to the statute in question. If a right has crystallized before the
repealing Act comes into force, by reason of repeal of the earlier statute
indisputably the right crystallized cannot be taken away. The right of the
H petitioners to practise in the field of veterinary practice has expressly been
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1.
713
taken away. When such a right has been taken away upon laying down an A
essential qualification therefore which the petitioners admittedly do not
posses, the right of the petitioners to continue to practice despite the fact
that they do not fulfill the criteria laid down under the Parliamentary Act or
the Central Act would not survive. The expression "unless a different
intention appears" contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, thus,
in this case, would be clearly attracted. A right whether inchoate or accrued B
or acquired right can be held to be protected provided the right survives. If
the right itself does not sun-ive and either expressly or by necessary
implication it stands abrogated, the question of applicability of Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act would not arise at all.
(Para 67, 69 and 701 (739-D-E; F-H; 740-A-BI C
Bansidhar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (198912 SCC 557 and Thyssen
Stahlunion Gmbh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (19991 9 SCC 334, relied
on.
Chief Adjudication Officer and Anr. v. Maguire, (19991 2 ALL ER 859, D
referred to.
10. The liability of a person to get himself registered on the State
register is imperative so as to enable the State to control the profession as
such. A subordinate legislation, as is well known, when validly framed,
becomes a part of the Act. Regulation 3 of The Maharashtra Veterinary E
Practitioners. (Conditions for registration of persons actually conducting
veterinary practice) Regulations 1981 provides for the mode and manner in
which registration of a medical practitioner has to be carried out. Regulation
3 encompasses within its fold both the categories, viz., practitioners as also
the employees. The necessity to maintain a register cannot be minimized.
Unless the name of a person is placed on the register, it may not be possible F
for the State or even the Veterinary Council to keep a watch on the
performance of the said persons and in particular when a complaint is made
against him. Only when a person's name is placed on the register, the question
of striking off his name therefrom in the event of commission of a professional
or other misconduct would arise. A person who is in service, in the event of
his committing any misconduct, may also be held to be subject to disciplinary G
action. For the aforementioned purpose, the statute being vague, a purposive
construction thereto must be given.
(Paras 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78) (740-F-G; 741-A-E)
Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 6 S.C.R.
Group and Ors., (2006( 3 SCC 434 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi
....
A
>-
Narain Dhut, (2007) 4 SCALE 36, referred to.
Statutory /nte1pretation by Francis Bennion, referred to.
11. For the purpose of registration, the conditions laid down under
B Regulations 3 were to be fulfilled. A person, thus, is not entitled to be
registered by the State Council or the Central Council only because he holds
an educational qualification. Several other factors are required to be taken
into consideration therefor. The right to practice or right to be in service or
right to obtain an appointment in government or semi-government organil.ation
,.
c
would, thus, be dependent upon a person's name being registered therefor in
~
the State or Central register, as the case may be. So long their names are
not on the register, the question of their acquiring any vested or accrued right
does not arise. In a case of this nature, the court cannot confer a right to
practice on the certificate holders despite the fact that their names do not
find place in the register maintained by the State Council or the Central
D Council. [Para 80) (742-8-C)
12. That those who are in service of the State or the semi-government
or local self government organil.ations must be held to have a right to continue
r'
in service. The employees of the State enjoy a status. A person who enjoys a
status can be deprived therefrom only in accordance with law having regard
'r
E to the nature of right conferred on him under Article 311 of the Constitution
oflndia. The law in this behalf is clear. Their nature of duty may change but
they would be otherwise entitled to continue in service. The State of
Maharashtra or for that matter even the other States have issued notification
(s) in terms of clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Minor veterinary
F
services, therefore, having been specified in terms of the said notification,
those certificate holders who are in the services of the State or the other
semi-government organizations are entitled to continue in services, subject
.,,.
of course to, carrying out their duties strictly in terms of the notification
"(
issued by the State under clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. In the
event, any State has not issued such a notification, they may do so.
G
(Para 81] (742-D-G)
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of2005.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
H
WITH
..\.
.-'
....
~~
~
y
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA. J.]
715
Civil Appeal No. 2537 of2007 .
A
G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., Mohan Parasaran, ASG, Aruneshwar Gupta, Sonarn
P. Wangdi, A.Gs, Swarup Singh, AAG, Pb., Avtar Singh Rawat, AAG, R.F.
Nariman, U.U. Lalit, Mohd. Yusuph, Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Amit Sibal,
Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Hema! K. Sheth (for Lawyer's Knit &
Co.,) Sanjay Sen, Assish Jha, Jayant Mohan, Manu Aggarwal, Manik B
Karanjawala, D.D. Karnath, Wasim A. Qadri, V.K. Verma, Anil Katiyar, Navin
Prakash, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Anukul Raj, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R.
Satish, Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood, Shashwat Gupta, Shikha Tandon,
A. Mariaputharn, Aruna Mathur (for Aruputham Aruna & Co.,) Ashok Bhan,
D.S. Mabra, S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghupathy, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam c
Sharma, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, S. Prabhu Rarnasubrarnanian, J.S.
Attri, Khwairakparn Nobin Singh, S. Biswajit Meitei, D. Rao, Bhavanishankar
V. Gadnis, Sunita B. Rao, Anil Srivastava, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh,
Rahul Shukla, Tripurari Ray, T.V. George, Riku Sharma, Minakshi Sarma (for
Corporate Law Group.,) Suparna Srivastava, Puja Matlani, Rajesh Srivastava,
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, R.K. Pandey, A.K. Sinha, Ajay Siwach, Manjit Singh, D
Harikesh Singh, Vikrant Singh Bais, B.S. Banthia, Sunita Sharma, D.N.
Gobardhan, Pinky Anand, Piyush Singhal, Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera, B.
Sunita Rao, Ranjan Mukherjee, Kamini Jaiswal, Sanjay R. Hedge, R. Ayyarn
Perumal, Shreekant N. Terdal, M.T. George, Bimal Roy Jad, Mohanprasad
Meharia, Sunita Hazarika, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and B.B. Singh Radha E
Shyam Jena for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted in S.L.P.
2. Constitutionality and/ or applicability of the provisions of Section 30 F
of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for short "the Central Act") is in
question herein.
3.
Before, however, embarking on the questions involved, we may at
the outset notice that the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11880 G
of 2006 arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 passed by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ
Petition No. 4619 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by
the appellant herein in regard to the applicability of Section 30 of the Central
Act was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the following prayers were made:
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 6 S.C.R.
(a) the declaration that the non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who
are registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act,
1971 (for short to be referred as "the State Veterinary Act") are eligible
to practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner and on such
conditions as they were prior to coming into force of the Indian
Veterinary Councils Act, 1984 ("Central Veterinary Act" for short) in
the State of Maharashtra;
(b) to declare that non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who ar~eligible
to be registered under the State Veterinary Act will be permitted to
practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner and on such conditions
as they were prior to the coming into force of the Central Veterinary
Act in the State of Maharashtra; and
(c) for directions to renew the registration of non-graduate Veterinary
Practitioners in the register maintained by the State Council under the
State Veterinary Act til the coming into force of the Central Veterinary
Act.
4. The Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners representing similarly placed veterinary practitioners
from several States and Union Territories of India against the Union of India
as also the concerned States praying inter alia for the following reliefs:
"(a) issue an appropriate writ revoking and declaring null and void the
impugned Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and
(b) issue an appropriate writ revoking and declaring null and void
Rule No. 37145 oflndian Veterinary Practitioners Regulation, 1992.
***
***
***
(I) issue a writ of mandamus/any other appropriate writ, order or
directions restraining the Respondents from acting/ giving effect to
the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act,
1984 and Rule No. 37/45 oflndian Veterinary Practitioners Regulation,
1992 and the above notifications mentioned in prayer clause ( c) to (k)
above."
In the writ petition, prayers have also been made for revoking and
declaring notifications issued by the respective State Governments in terms
of Section 30 of the Central Act as void.
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.)
717
5. We will. however, record the facts of the matter from Civil Appeal A
arising out of SLP (C) No. I 1880 of 2006.
Appellant is an Association registered under the Trade Unions Act. It
purports to represent the Veterinary Practitioners of the State of Maharashtra.
The subject of legislation was a State subject. The States of Haryana, Bihar,
Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, however, adopted a resolution B
purported to be in terms of Clause (I) of Article 252 of the Constitution of
India requesting the Union of India to make a parliamentary legislation to the
'1
effect that the matter may be regulated in those States by Parliamentary Act.
>-
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said resolution, Parliament enacted the
Central Act being Act No. 52 of 1984. It came into force with effect from 18th C
August, 1984. It was enacted with a view to regulate veterinary practice and
to provide, for that purpose, for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of
India and State Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of the
veterinary practitioners and for matters connected therewith.
6. We may hereafter notice some of the provisions of the Central Act. D
7. Sections 2(e), 2(f) and 2(g) of the Central Act read as under:
"(e) "recognised veterinary qualification" means any of the veterinary
qualifications included in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule;
(f) "register" means a register maintained under this Act;
(g) "registered veterinary practitioner" means a person whose name
is for the time being duly registered in a register;"
E
8. Section 3 provides for the establishment of the Central Council and
the State Councils.
F
9. Sections 15, 22, 23, 30 and 67 of the Central Act read as under:
"15. (I} The veterinary qualifications granted by any veterinary
institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be
recognised veterinary qualifications for the purposes of this Act,
G
(2) Any veterinary institution in India, which grants a veterinary
qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the
Central Government to have such qualification recognised and the
Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification
in the Official Gazette amend the First Schedule so as to include such H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 6 S.C.R.
A
qualification therein and any such notification may also direct that an
entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against
such veterinary qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised
veterinary qualification only when granted after a specified date.
22. Minimum standards of veterinary education.-
B
(1) The Council may, by regulations, specify the minimum standards
of veterinary education required for granting recognised veterinary
qualifications by veterinary institutions in those States to which this
Act extends.
c
(2) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments
thereof shall be furnished by the Council to the State Government
concerned and the Council shall, before submitting such regulations
or any amendments thereof, as the case may be, to the Central
Government for approval, take into consideration the comments of the
b
State Government received within three months from the furnishing of
the copies as aforesaid.
(3) The Central Government may, before approving such regulations
or any amendments thereof, consult the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research.
E
(4) The Committee constituted under section 12 shall from lime to time
report to the Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may
recommend to the Council such amendments thereof as it may think
fit.
23. Indian veterinary practitioners register.-
F
(I) The Council shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of
this Act, cause to be maintained in such form and in such manner as
may be provided by regulations a register of veterinary practitioners
to be known as the Indian veterinary practitioners register which shall
contain the names of all persons who possess the recognised veterinary
G
qualifications and who are for the time being enrolled on a State
veterinary register of the State to which this Act extends.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Council to keep the
Indian veterinary practitioners register in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and of any orders made by the Council, and
H
from time to time to revise the register and publish it in the Gazette
"
~
"
y
,,.
--(
) -.
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
719
,.__
of India or in such other manner as may be provided by regulations. A
(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.
(4) Each State Veterinary Council shall furnish to the Council six B
printed copies of the State veterinary register as soon as may be after
the I st day of April of each year and each State Veterinary Council
shall inform the Council without delay of all additions, and other
.;
amendments in the Slllte veterinary register made from time to time .
>.
30. Right of persons who are enrolled on the Indian veterinary c
practitioners register.-
No person, other than a registered veterinary practitioner, shall-
(a) hold office as veterinary physician or surgeon or any other like
office (by whatever name called) in Government or in any institution D
maintained by a local or other authority;
...,,
(b) practise veterinary medicine in any State :
Provided that the State Government may, by order, permit a person
y
holding a diploma or certificate of veterinary supervisor, stockman or
stock assistant (by whatever name called) issued by the Directorate E
of Animal Husbandry (by whatever name called) of any State or any
veterinary institution in India, to render under the supervision and
direction of a registered veterinary practitioner, minor veterinary
services.
Explanation.-"Minor veterinary services" means the rendering of F
~
preliminary veterinary aid, like, vaccination, castration, and dressing
'-yof wounds, and such other types of preliminary aid or the treatment
of such ailments as the State Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;
( c) be entitled to sign or authenticate a veterinary health certificate or G
any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated
by duly qualified veterinary practitioner;
~ ~
(d) 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, on any
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 6 S.C.R.
A
matter relating to veterinary medicine.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
67. Repeal and saving.-
As from the commencement of this Act in any State, every other Act
relating to any matter contained in this Act and in force in that State
shall, to the extent to which that Act or any provision contained
therein corresponds, or is repugnant, to this Act or any provision
contained in this Act, stand repealed and the provisions of section
6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall apply to such repeal as if
such other Act were a Central Act."
10. The State of Bombay enacted Bombay Veterinary Practitioners Act,
1953 (for short "the 1953 Act"). The matter relating to veterinary practice in
the then State of Bombay as also the requisition in the service of the State
appointments for the purpose of veterinary duties was regulated. The 1953
Act provided for maintenance of the register of the veterinary practitioners.
Sections 14, 19, 24 and 25, which are relevant for our purpose, read as under:
"14 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person shall, ifhe
holds any of the qualifications included in the Schedule be entitled
on application to be registered, on payment of a fee of Rs. 15 and on
giving evidence to the satisfaction of the Registration Officer or the
Registrar, as the case may be, of his possession of a qualification
entitling him for registration.
(2) The State Government may, after consulting the Registration Officer
or the Council, as the case may be, permit the registration of any
person who has been actually conducting veterinary practice in the
State of Bombay since a date prior to the 1st day of January 1944,
notwithstanding the fact that he may not be possessing qualifications
entitling him to have his name entered in the register.
(3) Every person for the time being registered with the veterinary
Council of any other State in India under any law for the registration
of veterinary practitioners in force in such State shall, if reciprocity
of registration has been arranged with such Council, be entitled to be
registered under this Act, on making an application in that behalf, on
payment of a fee of Rs. 15 and on his informing the Registration
Officer or the Registrar, as the case may be, of the date of his registration
under the said law and on giving a correct description of his
qualifications with the dates on which they were granted.
,..
-'
~
y
.,,
-{
) -
y
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J]
721
(4) Any person who has been convicted of a cognizable offence as A
defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or who, being or
having been subject to military law has been convicted under the
Army Act or under the Indian Army Act, 1911 or under the Army Act,
1950, of an offence which is also a cognizable offence as so defined
and any person who after due enquiry has been held guilty by the B
Council of infamous conduct in any professional respect may be
refused registration under this Act.
19. No person shall, except with the sanction of the State Government,
hold any appointment for the performance of veterinary duties in any
veterinary dispensary, hospital or infirmary which is not supported C
entirely by voluntary contributions or which belongs to a local authority
or in any public establishment, body or institution, unless he is
registered under this Act.
24 Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being
in force, no person other than a person registered under Part IV of this D
Act -
(a) shall sign or authenticate any veterinary or physical fitness
certificate required by any law or rule to be signed or authenticated
by a duly qualified veterinary practitioner, or
(b) shall be qualified to give evidence as an expert under section 45 E
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or any matter relating to veterinary
science.
25. No person shall add to his name any title, description, letters or
abbreviations which imply that he holds a degree, diploma, licence or
certificate as his qualification to practice any system of veterinary F
science unless -
(a) he actually holds such degree, diploma, licence or certificate; and
(b) such degree, diploma, licence or certificate is specified in the
Schedule or his recognized by law for the time being in force in India G
or in any part thereof or has been conferred, granted or issued by an
authority empowered or recognized as competent by the State
Government to confer, grant, or issue such degree, diploma, licence or
certificate."
11. The State of Bombay was bifurcated into the State of Maharashtra H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 6 S.C.R.
A and the State of Gujarat with effect from I st May, 1960.
12. The State of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Veterinary
Practitioners Act, 1971 (for short "the 1971 Act"). The said Act came into
force from 15th November, 1971. Section 15 of the 1971 Act mandates the
State to cause a register to be prepared for veterinary practitioners of the
B State and maintained in such form as may be directed. The register is to
contain the name, address and qualification of every person registered
thereunder together with the date on which such qualification was acquired.
c
D
E
13. Sub-sections ( l) and (2) of Section 18 of the 1971 Act read as under:
"18 (I) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person shall, ifhe
holds any of the qualifications included in the Schedule, be entitled
on application to be registered, on payment of such fee as may be
provided by regulations and on giving evidence to the satisfaction of
the Registration Officer or the Registrar as the case may be, of his
possession of a qualification entitling him for registration.
(2) The State Government may, after consulting the Registration Officer
or the Council, as the case may be, permit the registration of any
person who has been actually conducting veterinary practice in the
State of Maharashtra on such conditions as may be provided for by
regulations made for this purpose, notwithstanding the fact that he
may not be possessing qualifications entitling him to have his name
entered in the register."
14. Section 23 of the 1971 Act contained an identical provision which
is in pari materia with the provisions of the 1953 Act. Section 26 empowers
p the Council to call for information and attend examination. Section 33 provided
for control in the following terms:
G
H
"3 3. If it shall appear to the State Government on the report of the
Council or otherwise, that the course of study and examinations
prescribed by any of the institutions specified in column I of the
Schedule conferring the qualifications described in column 2 of that
Schedule with their abbreviations specified in column 3 thereof are
not such as to secure the possession by persons obtaining such
qualifications of the requisite knowledge and skill for the efficient
practice of their profession, or if it shall appear to the State Government,
on the report of the Council or otherwise, that the course of study and
.,...
) -
"'
-y-
""'!
',...-
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B.