Dr. H.N. Ravindra and Others vs The Principal Secretary Department of Medical Education and Others

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order Annexure-A dated 31.3.2012 passed by the second respondent is called in question in these writ petitions. By the said order, the second respondent has declared the election held to the Medical Council during the months of June-August-2011 void and as such the election proceedings were set aside and consequently election of the returned candidates was also set aside. It is ordered to conduct fresh elections to the Medical Council in accordance with law. The petitioners were declared elected in the election held in the months of June-August 2011. The results were declared on 1.9.2011. In continuation of the declaration of the results, the seventh respondent issued communication as per Annexure-C to constitute committee for Karnataka Medical Council. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have raised election dispute on 14.9.2011 challenging the validity of the election. The Election Petition was forwarded to the State Government for further action as per Rule-19(6) of the Karnataka Medical Registration Rules, 1963.

By filing these writ petitions, the returned candidates have raised various grounds assailing the correctness of the impugned order passed by the second respondent setting aside the election. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served in entering into the merits of the matter inasmuch as at the first look itself it is clear that the principles of natural justice are violated while passing the impugned order. Therefore learned advocates on record addressed their arguments on the question relating to sufficiency of opportunity granted by the second respondent in favour of the petitioners.

The records clearly reveal that the notices were sent to the petitioners to appear on 27.3.2012 in Election Petition Nos. HFW 416 MPS 2010 (Part-2); HFW 416 MPS 2010 (Part-3) and HFW 416 MPS 2010 (Part-4). On that day, the petitioners appeared through their counsel and prayed for two weeks time for filing statement of objections. On the very day, one more Election Petition was submitted by Respondents 4 and 5 which is numbered as Election Petition No. HFW 41 6 MPS 2010 (Main Petition). The notice of the main petition was also given to the petitioners'' counsel in the office of the second respondent on the very day i.e., 27.3.2012 for the first time. It is but natural for the petitioners'' counsel to pray for opportunity to submit their statement of objections in the main petition also. In this regard, the adjournment was sought for on behalf of the petitioners for two weeks. However with great reluctance the second respondent has granted time for only one day i.e., up to 28.3.2012. These facts are clear from paragraphs 16 and 17 of the impugned order. The petitioners again represented on 28.3.2012 before the second respondent. They filed application praying for dismissal of the Election Petition by raising the ground of non-maintainability of Election Petition on 28.3.2012. Strangely, the second respondent without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, reserved the matter for orders and passed the impugned order Annexure-A dated 31.3.2012.

From the aforementioned facts, it is amply clear that absolutely no opportunity is given to the petitioners while setting aside the election. Rule-20 of the Karnataka Medical Registration Rules, 1963 mandates the Government to afford opportunity to the petitioners in the enquiry proceedings relating to the Election Petition. Only after enquiry as per law, the order needs to be passed by the jurisdictional authority. In the matter on hand, absolutely no opportunity is given to the petitioners to substantiate their case. The opportunity is refused by the second respondent on the ground that the copies of the election petition were sent to the petitioners about two months prior to that date by the Returning Officer and therefore no further opportunity need be given to the petitioners. Such observation by the second respondent is uncalled for inasmuch as the opportunity needs to be given by the State Government and not by the Returning Officer. Even if the Election Petition was sent by the Returning Officer in advance immediately after receipt of the same, the proceedings before the State Government will proceed only after the papers were forwarded by the State Government. The State Government will issue notice to the parties and thereafter enquiry will be conducted after hearing the parties. Such a procedure is not followed in this matter. Since the impugned order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same stands quashed. The second respondent is directed to reconsider the election proceedings on merits and in accordance with law as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order. In order to avoid further delay, this Court by agreement of all the parties fixes the date of appearance before the second respondent on 17th June 2013 at 3 p.m.

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed with the above observations.