(1.) The petitioner, who was elected as a Member of the Central Council of Homeopathy pursuant to the results of the elections of the Council declared on 17.08.2017, has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 15.01.2018 vide which the respondent No.1 has based on an inquiry, declared the election to the Council, as a result whereof the petitioner and three other persons stood elected as members of the Council, as void and it has further been ordered that, a fresh election be conducted in the State of Bihar as per the provisions of Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and Homeopathy Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975.
(2.) In support of his challenge to the impugned order dated 15.01.2018, Mr.Bansal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has raised various contentions including the plea that the impugned order has been passed without giving any notice to any of the elected persons. On this issue, this Court had granted an opportunity to the learned counsel for the respondent to obtain instructions. Today, Mr.Bhardwaj submits that he is unable to dispute the fact that before passing the impugned order, no notice had been given to any of the elected Members and on the other hand, the impugned order was passed by relying on the complaints and representations received from the aggrieved parties.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid undisputed position, it is apparent that the impugned order was passed not only in the breach of principles of natural justice, but also in violation of the Rule 28 of the Homeopathic Central Council Elections Rule, 1975 which while laying down the procedure for dealing with election disputes, also provides for an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. At this stage, it is deemed appropriate to refer Rule 28 of the Homeopathy Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 which reads as under:-