Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Manohar Pal Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2003HP168
Author: Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Bench: Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT
Kamlesh Sharma, Actg. C.J.
1. The petitioner is a registered practitioner of Indian System of Medicine in Himachal Pradesh under the H. P, Board of Ayurveda and Unani Systems of Medicine, Shimla. He has filed the present writ petition to seek the following reliefs :
"(1) That the impugned Notice of Election dated 6-2-2002 (Annexure-P-1) for electing one member of Ayurveda as member of Central Council oil Indian Medicine (CCIM) may kindly be qu,ashed and set aside, and the respondents may be directed to update and re-notify the Voter List (Electoral Roll) in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975.
(ii) That the impugned Electoral Rolls (Annexures-P-2 and P-3) may also be quashed being incorrect and not updated and the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 may be directed to issue revised version of the Electoral Roll after updating the same.
(iii) That the medical practitioners of Indian System of Medicine registered in Himachal Pradesh on the basis of experi-ence and are not qualified as per the provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and the Rules framed thereunder may be declared to be not eligible to participate in the election process for election as member to the post of CCIM from Himachal Pradesh.
(iv) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case and they may also be burdened with costs of this petition."
2. The case of the petitioner is that for holding elections in the State of Himachal Pradesh for electing one member for Ayurveda and one member for Unai System of Medicine in the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM), New Delhi under Section 3 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), notification dated 6-2-2002 (Annexure-P-1) was issued by respondent No. 3 as per Rule 7 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). As per this notification, the nomination papers were to reach the Returning Officer before 3 p.m. on 6-3-2002. The scrutiny of nomination papers was to be taken up at 5 p.m. on 7-3-2002 and thereafter within seven days the nomination papers could be withdrawn. The date for poll was fixed 16-5-2002 and scrutiny and counting of votes was to commence at 10.00 a.m. on 18-5-2002.
3. The petitioner filed this petition on 4-3-2002 and it was taken up on 14-3-2002 when Mr. Vinod Sharma, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and notices to other respondents were ordered to be issued. The writ petition was again taken up for admission on 6-5-2002 when the matter was considered and in the interim, it was ordered that counting and declaration of result will remain stayed.
4. Now, the pleadings are complete and we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on merits.
5. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that the electoral roll issued by the Returning Officer, (Annexures-P-2 and P-3) has not been updated as it includes the names of number of dead persons and the persons who are not eligible either to vote or to be candidates for election. According to the petitioner, the electoral roll (Annexures-P-2 and P-3) is the exact replica of the electoral roll issued at the time of earlier election on 16-5-1994 and it includes the names of large number of persons who have died in the meantime. It is also alleged that List-III of electoral roll contains the names of ineligible persons who have been registered on the basis of experience which is against the instructions dated 21-10-1981 (Annexure-P-4) issued by the Central Council, of Indian Medicine that no person will be registered on the basis of experience.
6. Respondents 1 and 2, respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 have filed their separate reply-affidavits. All of them have raised preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in view of Section 4(2) of the Act which provides that where dispute arises regarding any election to the Central Council, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final. Therefore, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is the Returning Authority as well as Final Authority in all disputes relating to election to the Central Council of Indian Medicine. But the petitioner instead of approaching the Central Government has filed the present writ petition which deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. Referring to Section 4(1) of the Act, it is pointed out that the Central Council of Indian Medicine has no role/interference in the conduct of election to the Central Council and the same has to be conducted by the Central Government.
7. It is also the case of the respondents that by now it is well settled that the High Court should not interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction when the election process had already started. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the defect in the electoral roll goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the election even if it is already held.
8. We do not find any substance in this submission and uphold the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents. Firstly, under Section 4(2) of the Act any dispute regarding any election to the Central Council is to be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final. The scope of reference to the Central Government in respect of any dispute regarding election to the Central Council is very wide which, may cover the dispute in respect of preparation of the electoral roll. In fact, as provided under Section 4(1) of the Act, it is the Central Government which is to conduct the election under Clause (a) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the proper Forum for raising any dispute regarding election to the Central Council including the preparation of electoral roll is the Central Government. Rule 6 of the Rules also provides that if any question arises as to whether a person is or not entitled to vote in the election or to stand for the election, the question shall be referred to the Returning Officer who shall decide the same. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances on record, either the petitioner should have approached the Returning Officer or the Central Government instead of filing the present petition.
9. Secondly, the election process having been already set in motion by filing of the nomination papers on 6-3-2002, we were not supposed to stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral role. The legal position in this regard is well settled in various judgments of the Apex Court. A couple of latest judgments are delivered in Shyamdeo P. D. Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46 : (AIR 2000 SC 3000) and Sadguru Janardan Swami Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509 : (AIR 2001 SC 3982).
10. In the result the writ petition is dismissed having no merits. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Central Government under Section 4(2) of the Act, if he so desires. There is no order as to costs.
CMPs No. 318. 2546 and 2547 of 2002 No orders in view of the dismissal of the writ petition. The interim order dated 6-5-2002 is vacated. All the applications are disposed of.