AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
Heard on Delay Condonation Application (IA/2/2021).
Learned counsels for the respondents fairly do not oppose the application seeking condonation of delay, accordingly, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.2020 rendered by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No.3328 of 2018. The said writ petition has been preferred primarily to challenge the election of respondent no.4 as President of CCIM (Central Council of Indian Medicines), the result whereof declared on 02.12.2016.
The petitioner was aggrieved on the ground that there were malpractices resorted to in the conduct of the elections. It appears that the petitioner had, earlier, preferred WPMS No.398 of 2018. That writ petition was disposed of on 04.07.2018 directing completion of enquiry or appointment of new Enquiry Officer in respect to the said elections. The new Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Central Government, which submitted enquiry report. The petitioner was not satisfied with the said enquiry report and consequently preferred Writ Petition No.3328 of 2018. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by observing that the new Enquiry Officer had not found any irregularity in the conduct of the elections, he also observed, pertinently, that respondent no.4, against whom the allegation was made by the petitioner and who was the successful candidate in the elections, had already died and the Central Council of Indian Medicines had been superseded by the Indian Medicines Central Council (Amendment) Act, 2020. Therefore, the position of the president of the erstwhile council in any event did not survive.
The submission of Mr. Aditya Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondents did not comply with the order dated 04.07.2018 passed in WPMS No.398 of 2018, inasmuch as, a de nova the enquiry was conducted and the previous enquiry was not carried forward.
In our view, looking to the developments, which have taken place, in the meantime, which we have already noticed herein-above the said issue is completely academic and there is no reason for the Court to waste its time in examining the same.
Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there are aspects of illegality and criminal conduct on the part of certain persons in the conduct of the elections. He states that the appellant would initiate criminal action against the persons involved. In so far as that aspect is concerned, we have nothing to say in the matter as it is open to the appellant to take whatever steps he is advised in accordance with law.
We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.