Santosh Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Reserved on 09.07.2026
Delivered on 10.07.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 21019 of 2026
Santosh Kumar Sharma
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Pratibha Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
AFR
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
(Delivered by Indrajeet Shukla, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5.
2. The writ petition assails the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by
fourth respondent/Chief Medical Officer, Etah, District Etah,
whereby the hospital of the petitioner has been sealed in compliance
of letter no.1670/(1)/03.06.2024/ issued by the Principal Secretary,
Government of U.P. Further, the petitioner has prayed for the issue
of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding State authorities
to permit the petitioner to operate his Clinic and practice modern
medicine.

2
WRIC No. - 21019 of 2026
3. Facts in brief are being delineated as under:
(i) The petitioner claims that he has obtained Vocational
Certificate Code No.802 (Community Health) in the year 2005 from
the National Institute of Open Schooling and based on said
certificate is eligible to practice modern scientific medicine.
(ii) The petitioner was put under notice on 26.06.2019 by the
Chief Medical Officer, Etah to submit his degrees and educational
record entitling him to practice medicine to which the petitioner
replied on 03.07.2019. Thereafter, he again submitted a detailed
stand on 27.12.2024, annexing all his academic testimonials with a
request to withdraw the notice.
(iii) The petitioner was lastly served with a show cause notice
dated 01.05.2025 for the closure of his Clinic, which impelled the
petitioner to knock the doors of this Court by virtue of Writ-C
No.41953 of 2024 (Santosh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P.). The
said writ petition was disposed off on 08.01.2026 with following
order:
“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.
2. The petitioner has been issued show cause notice dated 01.05.2025 for certain
deficiency found in the clinic of the petitioner and also sealed the clinic.
3. It appears from the show cause notice that three days' time has been granted to the
petitioner to submit documents as sought for.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that several replies to the show
cause notice have been given by the petitioner, but the competent authority has not
yet considered the same.
5. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that no useful purpose would be served
in keeping the writ petition pending and appropriate direction may be issued to the
competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, we dispose off the writ petition permitting the
petitioner to file a detailed objection/representation against the show cause notice
dated 01.05.2025 before the respondent no.4-Chief Medical Officer, Etah within a
period of two weeks from today. On filing such objection enclosing earlier
objections filed against the said show cause notice, the respondent No.4 is directed
to decide the objection of the petitioner against the show cause notice within a
period of one month from the date he receives the objection of the petitioner, after
giving due notice and opportunity of hearing and supplying all materials to be relied
upon by the authority concerned against the petitioner.”

3
WRIC No. - 21019 of 2026
(iv) The petitioner submitted an exhaustive representation in
compliance of order dated 08.01.2024 along with relevant
documents which he relied upon, to show his authority to practice
medicine, but his representation could not find favour with the
respondents.
(v) The petitioner’s representation has been rejected vide order
dated 16.02.2026 passed by respondent no.4 observing inter-alia
that petitioner is practicing and treating patient with allopathic
medicines, but is not entitled to practice aforesaid stream of
medicine without being registered in the office of the Chief Medical
Officer as warranted by Government Order No.2374/5-2001 dated
16.09.2021. It was also remarked that no registration/operation of
Clinic can be permitted for a practitioner holding a degree in
‘Electrohomeopathy’.
(vi) It has further been mentioned that the holder of a
certificate/diploma in Electrohomeopathy cannot be allowed to
practice allopathic medicine being prohibited by Government
Orders no. Anubhag-1, Sankhya-1297/71- Ayush-2016
Davlu-283/293/2014, Lucknow dated 03.08.2016 and Uttar Pradesh
Chikisa Anubhag-6, Sankhya-726/Panch-6-2023 Lucknow dated
13.04.2023.
Further, the clinic set up by the petitioner does not meet the
standards set up by Manak Dainik Sthapan (Registrikaran aur
Viniyaman), Adhiniyam, 2010, Uttar Pradesh Shashan, Chikitsa
Anubhag-6, Sankhya-2374/panch-5-2021 Lucknow dated
16.09.2021 and Uttar Pradesh Shashan Ayush Anubhag-1,
Sankhya-1297/71-Ayush-1-2016-davlu-283/2014, Lucknow dated
03.08.2016.

4
WRIC No. - 21019 of 2026
(vii) Lastly, the so called clinic/hospital does not have a biomedical
waste management system and even a fire NOC was not found. The
hospital/clinic was not found observing infection prevention and
control system, which is non-compliance with mandatory
provisions to run a clinic/hospital.
(viii) Since the petitioner could not show any valid qualification to
practice allopathic medicine or authority to operate a clinic, the
registration of the petitioner to practice allopathic medicine was not
found valid and, consequently, the seal on his hospital was not
removed. The criminal law has also been set in motion and the
representation of the petitioner rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that
adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded before passing
order under challenge. It is further contended that the complaint
moved by respondent no.6 was actuated by sheer vengeance, and
the petitioner having long experience in the field of medicine, ought
not have been deprived of by sealing his clinic/hospital.
5. It was further submitted that right to practice a profession,
including medicine, is an integral part of Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution of India and impugned order being exfacie bad
warrants interference.
6. Refuting the submissions of the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the
certificate of electrohomeopathy can by no stretch of imagination
confer authority upon the petitioner to practice modern medicine,
th
and order passed by 4 respondent is valid in the eyes of law.
7. The health of public at large is the primary responsibility of
the State Government. As such, any quack cannot be permitted to
play with the health of the general public. The practice of medicine

5
WRIC No. - 21019 of 2026
is regulated by the Statutes and Government Orders, which occupy
the field and prescribe standards. It is the State’s duty to protect
public health from unqualified practitioners.
8. It is well settled that a practitioner registered under one
system of medicine cannot transgress and practice another system,
particularly ‘allopathy’ without requisite qualification and
registration, and that doing so amounts to negligence per se
exposing both the practitioner and the public to grave risk (see
Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel (1996) 40 SCC 332). Likewise,
the Supreme Court has held that a practitioner of Indian system of
medicine is not entitled to prescribe allopathic drugs unless
expressly permitted by the governing statute or rules framed
thereunder (see Dr. Mukhtar Chand Vs. State of Punjab (1998) 7
Scc 579).
9. The petitioner’s certificate in electrohomeopathy by no stretch
of imagination can be said to be a valid degree/diploma entitling
him to practice modern medicine (allopath).
10. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by parties
and perused the record, it comes out that the petitioner though in
possession of a certificate in electrohomeopathy is not thereby
entitled to practice modern medicine, particularly the allopathic
system. The seal on the petitioner’s clinic has been declined to be
removed for the reason that it does not meet the standards to operate
a hospital/clinic, and even unqualified doctors were found to be
practicing modern medicine on the premises of the hospital in
question.
11. A person, who does not have knowledge of a particular
system of medicine but practices in that system is a quack and a

6
WRIC No. - 21019 of 2026
mere pretender of medical knowledge or skill or to put it differently,
can be maximum termed a charlatan.
12. A person can practice in allopathic system of medicine in
State or in the country only if he possess a recognized medical
qualification. Permitting a person, who does not possess the
recognized medical qualification in the allopathic medicine would
be in direct conflict with the Statute governing the field. In the case
of Dr. Mukhtar Chand (supra) the Supreme Court has held:-
“47. A harmonious reading of Section 15 of 1956 Act and Section 17 of 1970 Act
leads to the conclusion that there is no scope for a person enrolled on the State
Register of Indian medicine or Central Register of Indian Medicine to practise
modern scientific medicine in any of its branches unless that person is also enrolled
on a State Medical Register within the meaning of 1956 Act.
48. The right to practise modern scientific medicine or Indian system of
medicine cannot be based on the provisions of the Drugs Rules and declaration made
thereunder by State Governments. Indeed, Ms. Indira Jaising has also submitted that
the right to practise a system of medicine is derived from the Act under which a
medical practitioner is registered. But she has strenuously argued that the right
which the holders of degree in integrated courses of Indian medicine are claiming is
to have their prescription of allopathic medicine, honored by a pharmacist or the
chemist under the Pharmacy Act and the Drugs Act. This argument is too technical
to be acceded to because prescribing a drug is a concomitant of the right to practise a
system of medicine. Therefore, in a broader sense the right to prescribe drugs of a
system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to practise that system of
medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe allopathic drug cannot be wholly
divorced from the claim to practice allopathic medicine.”
13. The petitioner’s clinic is admittedly not registered with the
office of Chief Medical Officer, which is a sine qua non for
practicing modern medicine and treating patients.
14. The right to practice a profession under Article 19(1) (g) of
the Constitution of India is not an absolute right and remains subject
to reasonable restrictions that the State may impose in the interest of
the general public under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of
India (see Chintaman Rao Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC 118).
Regulatory measures ensure that only qualified and registered
persons practice medicine and the clinical establishment meet
prescribed standards. Such restrictions are legitimate and
proportionate restriction in the interest of public health and cannot

7
WRIC No. - 21019 of 2026
be said to offend Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India (see
State of Gujarat Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8
SCC 534).
15. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and the law, the
inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner is not entitled to
practice modern medicine (allopathy) on the strength of his
electrohomeopathy certificate. More so, his clinic/hospital also
failed to meet the standards prescribed by various Government
Orders as well as the National Commission for Indian System of
Medicine (NCISM) Act, 2020. This Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot substitute its own wisdom and findings
for those of competent expert authorities. The petitioner is not
entitled to practice modern medicine. Accordingly, the writ petition
fails and is hereby dismissed.
16. No order as to cost.
(Indrajeet Shukla, J.) (J.J.Munir, J.)
July 10, 2026
S.P.
Digitally signed by :-
SANJAY PURI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad