K.B.Nagur M.D(Ayu) vs Union Of India

Where any dispute arises regarding any election to the Central Council, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final. Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 3 provides that the Central Council shall consist of such number of members, not exceeding five, as may be determined by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule of the Act for each of the Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani systems of medicine, from each State, in which a State Register of the Indian Medicine is maintained, to be elected from amongst themselves, by the persons enrolled on that Register as registered practitioners of the respective systems.

20. Statutory or constitutional independence is a pre-

requisite to the proper functioning of such statutory bodies.

Their appropriate constitution, in accordance with the provisions of the statute is mandatory. All concerned, including the Central and State Governments have the onus to discharge their duties and functions effectively and expeditiously, in coordination and within the time specified.

Thus, in our considered opinion, a period of three months would be more than sufficient for completing the election process in accordance with law. This time limit shall operate only and as and when the Central Government and the Central Council jointly and severely are not able to hold the fresh elections within the term of office of the previously elected members, i.e., five years from the date on which the 21 members first assumed office.

Thus, in our considered opinion, a period of three months would be more than sufficient time for completing the election process, in the event of exceptional circumstances and if the elections had not been commenced and completed within the period of previous tenure of five years, as is the requirement of law, and the Government cannot abjure its obligation to do so within a maximum period of three months.

25. For the reasons afore-recorded, we partially allow this Public Interest Litigation, with the above observations and the 22 following directions:-

26. During the pendency of this writ petition, another writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 249 of 2011, was filed with identical prayers. In view of this judgment, that writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is liable to be dismissed as such.

27. I.A. No. 8 is an application for intervention in the present writ petition, by one Dr. Vinod Kumar Chauhan. I.A. No. 9 is an application by the same party, with the prayer that the election to Central Council, held from the State of Uttarakhand be set aside and that fresh selection process be ordered. I.A. No. 9 is dismissed, with the liberty to that petitioner to approach the court of competent jurisdiction, seeking appropriate relief and in accordance with law.

28. In view of the order of I.A. No. 9, I.A. No. 8 does not survive and is dismissed as such.

29. Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 736 of 2011 is also dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy, if the cause of action survives, before the concerned High Court.

30. All Transfer Petitions and Interlocutory Applications for impleadment are hereby dismissed. Other applications do not survive for consideration.

31. Before we part with this judgment, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the valuable and able assistance rendered by the learned ASG and all counsel and assisting counsel appearing in the present PIL.

CJI.

[Swatanter Kumar] New Delhi;

February 24, 2012 25