UDAI SINGH DAGAR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.