8.In addition, we find that the TN Clinical Establishment Rules deal with the registration of clinical establishments. For this purpose, minimum facilities have been specified in the annexure to the Rules. These minimum facilities are stipulated separately for the practice of allopathy and for the practice of systems of Indian medicine and homeopathy. Needless to say, such minimum facilities are prescribed in public interest and, in particular, in the interest of public health. The grievance of the Petitioner appears to be that the Rules do not enable the registration of a clinical establishment for the practice of integrated medicine. Upon perusal of the legislations that the Petitioner relies upon, we find that these legislations do not deal with the regulation of clinical establishments by specifying the requisite facilities for the registration of such clinical establishments. Instead, they specify the qualifications and registration requirements for the practice of particular systems of medicine, including integrated medicine, by individuals who intend to practice those systems of medicine. On the contrary, on perusal of Annexure-I to the TN Clinical Establishments Rules, it is evident that the infrastructure, staff and equipment requirements for consulting rooms, clinics, hospitals, etc. are stipulated. Therefore, even de hors the conclusion that a writ of mandamus is not maintainable for the purpose of amending the relevant rules, we are of the view that the Petitioner has failed to make out a case of conflict between the extant legislations and the TN https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Clinical Establishments Rules.
