STANLEY JONES V Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P23 order declaring the election of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent Council null and void on the basis of Ext.P24 report is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is a practitioner in Siddha System of Medicine. Pursuant to Ext.P6 notification for election for one member from amongst the registered Siddha practitioners in the State of Kerala to the Central Council of Indian Medicine (2nd respondent), the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 nomination. The 5th respondent, who is also a practitioner in Siddha System of Medicine, had submitted Ext.P8 nomination. Ext.P8 nomination submitted by the 5th respondent was rejected as per Ext.P9 order by the 4th respondent, who is the Returning Officer. Consequently, the petitioner, who was the only remaining candidate, was declared elected by Ext.P10. Challenging this, the 5th respondent filed Exts.P11 and P15 appeals before the 1st respondent against rejection of his nomination. On the basis of the direction of this Court in Ext.P17 judgment directing the 1st respondent to consider appeals on merit with notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent, the 1st respondent appointed a Deputy Secretary to Government of India as Inquiry Officer, who submitted Ext.P24 report. On the basis of that, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P23 order declaring the election of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent Council null and void. Thus, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) THE 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. According to the 1st respondent, Rule 25 of the amended IMCC (Election) Rules, 1975, confers powers with the Central Government to declare any election void on any election dispute referred to it under Sub -section 2 of Section 4 of the Act, for an election, within a period of thirty days from the date of election of the elected candidate on account of bribery, undue influence or other corrupt practice, which, in the opinion of the Central Government, has interfered with the free and fair conduct of the election. The power to conduct a fresh election is also envisaged. According to them, the enquiry was held as per Rule 25 of the amended IMCC (Election) Rules. They maintain the stand that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law after hearing both parties. According to them, the enquiry revealed that the absence of updated list led to various allegations and counter allegations. It was also pointed out that had the register been updated, the discrepancies regarding qualification, address etc. of the 5th respondent would not have arisen. It is also averred that the Returning Officer had acted in a biased manner. He had failed in his duty in not adopting other ways to verify the genuineness of the signature. Therefore, it was concluded that the rejection of the nomination paper of the 5th respondent by the Returning Officer on the basis of the deficiency and non -rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner in spite of certain mistakes, was a result of the biased and partisan approach. Therefore, the 1st respondent justified the stand of cancelling the nomination of the petitioner.