Full Text
Date of Decision: 26.02.2018
DR. RAVINDRA KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Rudreshwar Singh, Mr.Saurabh Jain, Mr.Sumeet
Kr. Singh & Mr.Abhimanyu Kapoor, Advs.
Through: Mr.Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr.Satya Prakash Singh, Advs. for UOI.
Mr.Kundan K. Mishra & Mr.Ajay Kumar, Adv. for R-3.
JUDGMENT
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 2018:DHC:1396 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 to refer Rule 28 of the Homeopathy Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 which reads as under:-
4. The necessity to grant an opportunity of hearing was, thus, mandatory not only as per the statutory rules, but in my opinion, even otherwise where the very election of the petitioner was being set aside, it was incumbent upon the respondents to follow the principles of natural justice. In this connection, reliance may also be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nisha Devi v. State of H.P. reported as (2014) 16 SCC 392.
remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner for taking a fresh decision after giving due notice to the appellant and affording her an opportunity of being heard. The Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, shall complete the proceedings expeditiously, and not later than six months from the date on which a copy of this order is served on him.”
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.01.2018 passed by respondent no.1 is set aside. It is made clear that since the order is being set aside only on the grounds of violation of Rule 28 of the Homeopathic Central Council Election Rules, 1975 as also the violation of principles of natural justice, the respondents will be free to take action as per law. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any further action of the respondents, he will be at liberty to challenge the same on all grounds including the grounds taken in the present petition.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The pending application also stands disposed of. DASTI.
REKHA PALLI, J FEBRUARY 26, 2018