Civil Writ Petition No.12517 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12517 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.7.2011 Ashok Rana and another ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms.Bineyjeet Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This petition seeks quashing of the Rules 3,7,13, 14 and 15 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 to ensure that identity of voters is kept secret and mandamus to direct election being conducted under the supervision of a retired Judge of this Court. As per averments in the petition, vide notification dated 20.5.2011 election of one member of Unani System and one member of Ayurveda as members of Central Council of Indian Medicine under Section 3(1) (A) of the Central Council of Indian Medicine Act, 1970 has been declared. The procedure laid down for the same does not ensure ascertainment of identity of voters. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The election is to be held as per statutory provisions under the statutory Rules. Under Rule 5, the Returning Officer is to hold election who is an officer appointed by the Central Government. There being nominee of the Central Government to oversee the election process, the grievance, Civil Writ Petition No.12517 of 2011 -2- *** if any, has to be put forward before the said officer. The rules have been framed in exercise of statutory powers. The same have not been shown either to be beyond the provisions of statute or in violation of any provision of the Constitution. There is no ground to declare the same to be ultra vires. It can also not be presumed that the election to be conducted would be unfair. The petitioners have not shown any right to seek a direction to have election conducted under the supervision of a retired Judge of this Court. In absence of such a right, writ of mandamus for such a direction cannot be issued. We, thus, do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. It is, however, made clear that petitioners will be at liberty to avail such other alternative remedy as may be available to them. The writ petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 19, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge