LPA No. 1318 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1318 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 29, 2011 Dr. Amrit Sethi …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the respondent-Medical Council Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the private respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against interlocutory order dated 27.07.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge recording a categorical finding that prima facie there was no error in the election schedule issued for selection of members to the Punjab Medical Council, Mohali. The election programme was notified by the Returning Officer who in turn is appointed by the Government vide notification dated 15.03.2011 under Rule 13.. The interim order was vacated and the result of the election was ordered to be declared. However, the LPA No. 1318 of 2011 (O&M) -2- declaration of result was made subject to the final decision of the writ petition. 2. On the basis of Rule 13 of the Punjab Medical Registration Rules (for brevity 'the Rules'), the appellant has sought to argue that the Government has appointed the Returning Officer vide notification dated 15.03.2011 but the other requirement of Rule 13 of the Rules has remained unfulfilled because in the notification dated 15.03.2011, no date has been fixed by which election has to held by the Returning Officer. A reference has been invited to Rule 14(4) of the Rules to make a submission that every proposal for nomination is to be invited and must be signed by the proposer and seconder. It must also be sent by Registered post or delivered personally to the Returning Officer so as to reach him not less than 28 days before such date as may be notified under Rule 13 of the Rules. On the basis of the aforesaid provision, it has been argued that in the absence of any optimum time fixed by the State Government in the notification, the Returning Officer cannot fix any date for nomination and withdrawal. 3. Mr. B.S. Walia and D.S. Patwalia learned counsel for the respondents have, however, argued that Rule 13 of the Rules merely contemplates the fixation of optimum date for holding of elections by the Returning Officer and nomination by him must be called by keeping in view margin of atleast 28 days or more. According to them, the margin of 28 days has to be achieved as it is considered adequate period of notice. They have maintained that margin of 28 LPA No. 1318 of 2011 (O&M) -3- days by issuance of notification has been achieved. 4. We are satisfied at the first blush that there is no lacuna in issuance of notification by the Government on 15.03.2011 appointing Returning Officer without specifying any optimum date of election. It would have been better had the Government specified the date by which the election of the member must be held. However, in substance, the object of Rules do not seem to have been defeated because election has been held expeditiously and there is no allegation that there was any colourable or misuse of power by the Returning Officer. Accordingly, we are, prima facie, of the view that no interference in the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge would be warranted. The matter is already pending adjudication before the learned Single Judge and the issue raised in the present appeal may also be urged before the learned Single Judge. We are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the controversy nor it should be taken so by the learned Single Judge. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on 08.09.2011. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 29, 2011 Atul