AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner seeks a mandamus to the Central Government to take action against the Respondent No. 3 Shri Raghunandan Sharma u/s 31 of the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 3 was registered in the State of Rajasthan since the year 1984 and became a member of the Central Council in the year 1994; that he has on 27th January, 2011 got registered in the State of Goa mentioning his residential address as "C/o Shivaprasad, R/o House No. 383, 1st Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Talaulim Ponda, Goa".
The counsel for the Petitioner has first contended that u/s 5 r/w Section 31 of the Act, the Respondent No. 3 could not be a member in two States. However a reading of Section 31 on the basis whereof grievance is made shows that the same does not prohibit membership of two States. The counsel also so agrees. He however contends that the Respondent No. 3 inspite of changing his place of his residence and of practice to Goa, has not notified the Central Council of the same and has thus become liable for action u/s 31.
However there is no averment in the petition to the said effect also that the Respondent No. 3 has changed his place of residence or practice to Goa. Reliance in this regard is placed only on the registration in the State of Goa. However according to the Petitioner himself the registration in the State of Goa is given as "C/o Shivaprasad". The counsel has been unable to show that to be enrolled in State of Goa, the Respondent No. 3 necessarily had to have his place of residence or practice in Goa.
Even otherwise, the Petitioner has challenged the continuance of the Respondent No. 3 in Central Government for the last many years in a petition stated to be pending before the Apex Court and for this reason also it is not deemed appropriate to allow the second window to be opened.
The counsel for the Respondent No. 1 appearing on advance notice has also contended that the Petitioner has neither any right nor any locus to claim the relief in as much as the Petitioner has not shown as to how he is affected.
The counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner as a practitioner in the Ayurveda/Unani/Siddha system of medicines and is as such concerned. The counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has however rightly pointed out that the petition has not been filed in public interest and the Petitioner without showing any right of relief, would not be entitled to maintain the petition.
The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.