Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: - 20th November, 2023.
AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dhruv Madan & Mr. Saurabh Sharma Advs. (M. 9873767313)
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD with Ms. Arshya Singh, Adv. along with Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Deputy
Secretary, HFW.
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 50063/2023 (for seeking directions) in W.P.(C)-868/2023
2. The present petition was filed by the Petitioners, who are members of the Delhi Pharmacy Council, constituted under section 24 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The petition sought directions to the Respondent No. 1-GNCTD for notifying the results of the election conducted on 2nd November, 2021 to the Delhi Pharmacy Council. The petition was disposed of on 15th February 2023, with the following directions: “2……Today, it is submitted on behalf of the GNCTD that vide order dated 25th May, 2022 in W.P.(C) 6792/2022 titled “Vikas Tushir v. Lt. Governor NCT of Delhi & Ors.”, direction was given for the hearing of a statutory appeal relating to the election to the Delhi Pharmacy Council where the said appeal was pending before the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor. In the said petition the following order was passed:
3. Ld. counsel, further, submits that pursuant to the above order, the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor has passed order dated 2nd August, 2022 finally disposing of the appeal with the following directions: “Therefore, the Prayer of the Petitioners to set aside the Delhi Pharmacy Council Election-2021 and also set aside the final result declared by the respondentNo.4 vide Order No.
F.NO. 10/1844/Acad/DPSRU/2021-13215-13217 dated 02.11.2021 is hereby rejected. However, it may be noted that the Respondents No. 1 and 2 being government servants, are duty bound to adhere to the provisions of DoPT OM11013/1/2016-Estt.A-III, dated 27.02.2020 regarding prior sanction before contesting for an elective office under Rule- 15(1)(c) of CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. Since, there is non-compliance of this OM, it is for the concerned administrative authority of Government to take appropriate action as per applicable conduct rules. Therefore, Respondent No. 3 is directed to take notice of the above and examine the issue in accordance with rules in place on the subject for appropriate action.”
4. He submits that after the disposal of this appeal, the file has been escalated for the purposes of notifying the results of the elections. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, ld. Counsel submits that there has been considerable delay in the notification of the result of the elected body.
5. ……
6. Admittedly, the Delhi Pharmacy Council consists of an elected body for which elections have been conducted, way back, on 2nd November, 2021. The returning officers have communicated the results of the elections on 25th November, 2021 to the GNCTD as also to the Registrar. There is no reason for the notification of the results to be delayed for so long. Even if this Court takes into consideration the order passed on 25th May, 2022 by the ld. Single Judge and the order of the hon’ble Lieutenant Governor dated 2nd August, 2022, almost six months have elapsed since then. The notification of results ought to have been done expeditiously and escalation of file within the government departments, cannot be a ground for delay.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that the results of the elections of the Delhi Pharmacy Council shall be declared within a period of three weeks, as requested by ld. Counsel for the GNCTD, through a gazette notification. Any further delay would be attributable to the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare GNCTD.
8. The writ petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of in these terms. If there is any delay in the same, the Petitioner is free to approach this Court by way of an application.”
3. As per the above order, it was directed that the results of the election to the Delhi Pharmacy Council shall be declared within a period of three weeks and it was observed that escalation of files within government departments, cannot be a ground for delay.
4. Thereafter, Petitioner No. 4- Mr. Dinesh Kumar Madan moved the present application seeking directions to constitute the Delhi Pharmacy Council as the same had not yet been constituted and there were mistakes in the notification of the result by the GNCTD. Vide order dated 6th October, 2023, the Court observed that stark differences exist between the number of votes polled, as notified vide Delhi Gazette dated 26th May, 2023, and the table placed on record by the Office of the Returning Officer, Delhi Pharmacy Council Election. The relevant extracts of the order dated 6th October, 2023 is set out below:
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. No. Name and father’s name of the Votes polled │ │ Candidates │ ├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1 Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma 4355 │ │ 2 Mr. Rajnish Tyagi 4328 │ │ 3 Mr. Pankaj Gogia 4313 │ │ 4 Mr. Dinesh Kumar Madan 4298 │ │ 5 Mr. Madan Singh 4273 │ │ 6 Mr. Pankaj Attray 4221 │ │ 7. But the number of votes polled, as notified in the │ │ Delhi Gazette dated 26th May, 2023 are as follows: │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘