S N DESHMUKH Vs. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns the competence of respondents 2 to 5 occupy offices in the first respondent Council and excise powers and privileges vested in the office bearers of the said Council.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 is the Medical Council of India (Council) and its composition functions and powers have been codified into the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Act 102 of 1956), Respondents 2 to 5 were elected to the Council by the Senate/Syndicate of the Universities of Patna, Bihar, Mithila and Magadh. The Patna University is governed by an enactment known as the Patna University Act of 1976 (Bihar Act 24 of 1976). The other three Universities viz. Bihar, Mithila and Magadh Universities are governed by the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 (Bihar Act 23 of 1976). Respondents 2 to 5 came to the Council vide section 3(1)(b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, which section reads as follows :---

(3.) Petitioners claim to be members of the Medical Profession at Bombay. It is averred that the respondent No. 1 - Council is in-charge and control of medical education all over India. This control includes the curriculum, examinations, recognition of qualifications of various Universities, maintenance of standards of medical education and professional conduct and various other important tasks and functions. Respondents 2 to 5 came to the Council only by virtue or their membership of their respective Universities. Section 7(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act provides that an elected member shall be deemed to have vacated his seat as soon as he ceases to be a member of the Medical faculty of the University concerned. Having regard to the Ordinances aforementioned and as from 17-12-1986, respondents 2 to 5 had ceased to be members of the Medical faculty of their respective Universities. Therefore, their membership of the Council stood automatically terminated. Respondent No. 2 also ceased to be the President of the Council inasmuch as his membership of the Council lapsed with the abolition of Senate under the Ordinance amending the Patna University and Bihar State Universities Acts. Despite this clear position in law, respondent 2 to 5 continued to style themselves and exercise the powers and privileges attached to the membership of the Council. Petitioners had a vital right to see that the membership of the Council vested in the proper persons and that the functions of the Council were discharged by those duly competent to represent it. They claimed a declaration that respondents 2 to 5 had ceased to be members of the Council and direction to the Council to forthwith prohibit respondents 2 to 5 from acting as members of the Council. As to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and give relief upon the petition, it was averred that the Council was entrusted the task of maintaining the Indian Medical Register and such registration conferred the privilege of practice throughout India. Petitioners were members of the Medical Profession enlisted in the said Register. Each and every decision of the Council would affect the interest of the Medical Profession, existing and future, in the State of Maharashtra. Petitioners represented such Medical Practitioners in Maharashtra and the perpetration in office by respondents 2 to 5 would affect the vital rights of the petitioners and their constituents in this State.