KAVIRAJ BHUPENDER NATH GUPT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (the Act) provides for the constitution of the Central Council of Indian Medicine under Section 3, Subsection (1) of Section 3 empowers the Central Government to constitute a Central Council by a modification in the official gazette consisting of members mentioned therein Clause (a) empowers the Central Government to determine the number of members not exceeding five in accordance with First Schedule "for each of the Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani system of medicine." from each State in which a State Register of Indian Medicine is maintained. The members are "to be elected from amongst themselves by persons enrolled on that Register as practitioners of Ayurveda Siddha or Unani, as the case may be", The Central Government, has determined that one member representing Ayurveda and one member representing Unani system of medicine for the State of Himachal Pradesh are to be on the Council. The elections are to be held in accordance with the Indian Medicine Central Council (Electron) Rules. 1975. Dr. P. N. Chaturvedi, Director of Ayurveda. Himachal Pradesh, (respondent No. 2). has been appointed as the Returning Officer by the Central Government for conducting the elections in this State.

(2.) The Returning Officer issued a notice of elections in terms of Rule 7 fixing the date, time, and place for the receipt of nomination papers and their scrutiny despatch of voting papers to the voters, the pos the scrutiny, and the countering of votes. This notice is Annexure-A. The nomination papers were required to be submitted to be Returning Officer either personally or by registered post so as to reach him before 3 P.M. on 10.5.1983. The scrutiny was to be done at 11 A.M. on 11.5.1983. A candidate could withdraw his candidature by notice in writing signed by him and delivered to the Returning Officer within seven days of the scrutiny of the nomination papers. In the event of contest, ballot papers to the electors were to be sent by most by the Returning Officer by 14-6-.1983. The date for the poll was fixed for 14-7-1983. The scrutiny and counting of votes was to commence in the office of the Returning Officer at 11 A. M. on 16-7-1983. Only those candidates who fulfilled the qualifications laid down in Section 5 of the Act could contest.

(3.) The petitioners and some others duly filed their nomination papers On scrutiny only the nomination papers of the petitioners were found in order for the election of one member from amongst the practitioners of Ayurveda system of medicine. Now instead of holding the election the Returning Officer adopted a novel procedure. He wrote a letter (Annex B) to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and others on 11-5-1983 informing them that their nomination papers were not valid since either the proposer or the seconder were not enrolled on the Register as 'practitioners of Ayurveda but were enrolled as practitioners of Unani. Each addressee was informed that he was given a chance to submit his fresh nomination papers up to 16.5.1983 at 11 A. M. and that the scrutiny would fee done the same day at 3 P. M. They were also informed that nomination papers of the present petitioners had been found to be in order. Fresh nomination forms were sent to each one of the addressee. The result was that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 sent their nomination papers. Respondent No. 3. who had not filed his nomination paper earlier, now decided to file it. He as well as respondent No. 4 filed their nomination papers before 16.5.1983 and these ware accepted. Respondent No. 5 is stated to have filed his nomination paper on 17-5-1983, which was also accepted. Now the result was that whereas only two nomination on papers of the petitioners were found valid according to the notice issued under Rule 7, three more candidates, that is respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5, were also allowed to contest the election. The petitioners have filed this writ petition Challenging the candidature of respondents Nos. 3 to 5.