Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE20H DAY OF AUGUST201429TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 16461 of 2014 (G) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- C.S.JOHN, MACHINPARAMBATH, PUTHUPANAM P.O., VATAKARA KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CALICUT - 673 001.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYOLI - 673 522. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2008-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16461 of 2014 (G) 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1. PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
IN WPC194842008 DATED1712.2008. EXHIBIT P2. PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
IN WPC204242009 DATED2505.2010. EXHIBIT P3. PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy / P A to Judge A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
========================= W.P(C).No. 16461 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2014 JUDGMENT
Petitioner claims that he is practicing Electropathy/Electro-Homeopathy. According to the petitioner, though the nomenclature as Homeopathy is mentioned, he is not a homeopathy practitioner. He claims that his practice is being infringed at the hands of the police officers under the second respondent. Petitioner would submit that he is practicing this system of medicine at Kozhikode. Writ Petitioner relies on Exts.P1 and P2 judgment of this Court. In Ext.P1, paragraph 4, it is stated as follows: "It is one of the fundamental principles of rule of law that a citizen is free to do anything not prohibited by law. Every state action must be supported by a statutory provision. If a citizen challenges a State action, the State must be able to show the strict legal pedigree of its action. Otherwise, the courts will invalidate that action. In this case, the respondents have not brought to out notice any law, which prohibits the practice of Electropathy/Electro-Homeopathy. So, the State or its agents shall not interfere with the same. They shall not practice Modern Medicine, Homeopathy or any of the Indian Systems of Medicine. They shall not act in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act or Drugs and Cosmetics Act or other relevant Acts or Rules. If the petitioners continue their Electropathy/Electro-Homeopathy practice, without infringing any provisions of law, the police shall not interfere with the same. Unless the petitioners commit some cognizable offence by practicing Electropathy/Electro-Homeopathy, the police have no power or authority to interfere with their practice or summon them to the police station with a view to prevent their practice of Electropathy/Electro-Homeopathy".
2. In view of the judgment of this Court in Ext.P1, I am of the view, if petitioner is not found indulging in violation of any other provision of law by claiming himself as a Homeopathy or Allopathy or some other field of medicine which is covered by any other Statute, the activities that being carried by the petitioner is not being prohibited under law, he is entitled to carry such practice without any intervention by any one.
3. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the second and third respondents not to interfere with the practice of petitioner, if the practice of Electropathy/Electro-Homeopathy by the petitioner is not prohibited under any statutory provision under the law. It is made clear that if petitioner violates any statutory provisions, respondents 2 and 3 are free to take action against the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE. Sbna/20/08/14