RAJASHEKAR BHUSANURMATH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order Annexure-A passed by the Government of India dated 30.3.2012 by which the complaint filed by the petitioner stood rejected is called in question in these writ petitions. The petitioners as well as Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 alongwith others contested in the election for the post of Member to the Central Council of Indian Medicine-2011 ('CCIM-2011' for short), which was held on 13.6.2011 in Karnataka. The Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were declared as elected in the said election and the petitioners were defeated. The petitioners raised a dispute and the dispute was referred to the Central Government under Section 4(2) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 ('Central Act' for short) and the Central Government has passed the order Annexure-A rejecting the complaint lodged by the petitioners. Hence these writ petitions.

(2.) Sri Padmanabha V. Mahale, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Central Government is not justified in appointing the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations found in the complaint lodged by the petitioner; the Central Government is not justified in simply relying upon the report while coming to the conclusion, that too without application of mind; the Central Government has not applied its mind independently to the facts of the case before coming to the conclusion, but has simply upheld the enquiry report; Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are not entitled to contest election to the membership of CCIM-2011 in the constituency reserved for practitioners as contemplated under Section 3(1)(a) of the Central Act; Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are the Professors duly employed and are drawing the salary of the State Government and consequently are not Practitioners; Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are not entitled to practice inasmuch as they are not from clinical side and they do not have appropriate qualification in clinical side; Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have not obtained due permission from the State Government while contesting the election. On these among other grounds, he prays for quashing the order Annexure-A.

(3.) Annexure-R1 produced by Respondent No. 7 alongwith the statement of objections clearly reveals that Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have obtained due permission from the concerned authority for contesting in the election. Such permission was obtained by them on 11.5.2011 itself whereas the elections are conducted on 13.6.2011, which means that the permission is granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to contest in the election by the appropriate authority.