Ayurvedic doctor Dr Ved Prakash Tyagi has been asking for justice for his registration cancelled by the Registrar of the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttarakhand in 2013. The case has come up before the Supreme Court bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
The current petition has been filed assailing the orders dated 06.05.2013, 07.05.2013, 09.05.2013, 19.07.2013 and 27.07.2013, whereby the Registrar of the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttarakhand was pleased to decline to renew the registration of the petitioner and, thereafter, pleased to cancel the registration of the petitioner and appeal filed there from was dismissed by the state government.
It has been stated that undisputedly, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village Nanheda Anantpur, District Haridwar, wherein he has his ancestral as well as agricultural properties and his forefathers were the permanent resident of Village Nanheda Anantpur, District Haridwar, which is now part of the state of Uttarakhand.
Also, undisputedly, the petitioner, after obtaining Intermediate education from the College of District Haridwar, took admission in Parsurampuria Ayurvedic College, Sikar, Rajasthan and did his BAMS from Parsurampuria Ayurvedic College, Sikar, Rajasthan.
It is also not in dispute that petitioner got himself registered with the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan and joined government services in the year 1985 and, thereafter, resigned from the government services in the month of February, 2009. It is also not in dispute that petitioner contested and won the elections of Member of Central Council of Indian Medicine being Member of the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan.
On Tuesday (January 16), the court ordered that the matter be transferred to an appropriate high court with the mutual consent of both the parties. The court observed that the matter has already been heard three times in the Supreme Court and five times in high courts. Therefore, now the dispute related to irregularities in the election raised in tribunal be heard once again in the high court and the matter be disposed of as earliest as possible.
—India Legal Bureau