S.N. Deshmukh And Ors. vs Medical Council Of India And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 43 Del

JUDGMENT

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

(1) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners numbering four seek a writ or direction for setting aside the elections of the Executive Committee including that of the President and Vice-President of the Medical Council of India which elections were held on 4/03/1991. Another direction sought is that Medical Council of India, the first respondent, to update its electoral roll in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and then for holding of elections as per law. Yet another direction sought is that respondents 4,5,15 and 16 were not entitled to participate in the activities of the first respondent as they had ceased to be members of the Council of the first respondent by operation of law. Two more directions are also sought :(1) for setting aside the minutes dated 4/03/1991 of the General Body Meeting of the Medical Council of the first respondent, and (2) for setting aside the minutes of the Executive Committee of the date 20/08/1991 and General Body Meetings of the dates 21 and 22/08/1991 of the first respondent. Since the minutes of the meetings of these dates had not been filed Along with the petition, prayers thereto, therefore, were neither pressed nor could begranted.There are as many as 18 respondents to the petition. First respondent,as noted above, is the Medical Council of India (for short 'the Medical Council')which is constituted by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act and performs various functions and duties under the Act. The second and third respondents are respectively the President and Vice President of the MedicalCouncil. Respondents 4 to 16 are those against whom it is alleged that either they were wrongly included or excluded as members of the Medical Council.Respondent No. 17 was acting as Administrator under the orders of the Court in an earlier writ petition (C.W. 1003/90 decided on 21/11/1990).Respondent No. 18 is Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

(2) Before we proceed to deal with the contentions of the petitioners, it will be appropriate to set out certain provisions of the Act dealing with the constitution and composition of the Medical Council (Section 3), the mode of election (Section 4), restrictions on nomination and membership (Section 5),incorporation of the Medical Council (Section 6), and the term of office ofPresident, Vice President and the Members of the Medical Council (Section 7):

"3.(1) The Central Government shall cause to be constituted a Council consisting of the following members, namely :(a) one member from each State other than a Union Territory,to be nominated by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned;(b) one member from each University, to be elected from amongst the members of the medical faculty of the University by members of the Senate of the University or in case the University has no Senate by members of the Court;(c) one member from each State in which a State Medical Register is maintained, to be elected from amongst themselves by persons enrolled on such Register who possess the medical qualifications included in the First or the Second Schedule or in Part Ii of the Third Schedule;(d) seven members to be elected from amongst themselves by persons enrolled on any of the State Medical Registers who possess the medical qualifications included in Part I of the Third Schedule;(e) eight members to be nominated by the Central Government.(2) The President and Vice-President of the Council shall be elected by the members of the Council from amongst themselves.(3) No act done by the Council shall be questioned on the ground merely of the existence of any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of the Council".

"4.(1) An election under clause (b), clause (c) or clause (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 3 shall be conducted by the Central Government in accordance with such rules as may be made by it in this behalf, and any rules, so made may provide that pending the preparation of the Indian Medical Register in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the members referred to in clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 may be nominated by the Central Government instead of being elected as providedtherein.(2) Where any dispute arises regarding any election to the Council,it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final."

"5.(1) No person shall be eligible for nomination under clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 unless he possesses any of the medical qualifications included in the First and Second Schedules, resides in the State concerned, and, where a State Medical Register is maintained in that State is enrolled on that register.""6. The Council so constituted shall be body corporate by the name of the Medical Council of India, having perpetual succession anda common seal, with power to acquire and hold property, both moveable and immovable, and to contract, and shall by the said name sue and be sued.""7. (1) The President or Vice-President of the Council shall hold office for a term not exceeding five years and not extending beyond the expiry of his term as member of the Council.(2) Subject to the provisions of this Section, a member shall hold office for a term of five years from the date of his nomination or election or until his successor shall have been duly nominated or elected, whichever is longer.(3) An elected or nominated member shall be deemed to have vacated his seat if he is absent without excuse, sufficient in the opinion of the Council, from three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Council or, in the case of a member elected under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3, if he ceases to be a member of the medical faculty of the University concerned, or in the case of a member elected under clause (c) or clause (d) of that sub-section,if he ceases to be a person enrolled on the State Medical Registerconcerned.(4) A casual vacancy in the Council shall be filled by nomination orclection, as the case may be, and the person nominated or elected to fill the vacancy shall hold office only for the remainder of the term for which the member whose place he takes was nominated or elected.(5) Members of the Council shall be eligible for re-nomination orre-election.(6) Where the said term of five years is about to expire in respect of any member, a successor may be nominated or elected at anytime within three months before the said term expires but he shall not assume office until the said term has expired."

(3) Section 8 of the Act provides for meetings of the Medical Council and Section 9 for constitution of various committees and servants of the MedicalCouncil. The Executive Committee under Section 10 consists of President,Vice-President, who are the ex officio members, and not less than seven and not more than eight other members elected from the Medical Council from amongst its members. We are not concerned in this writ petition with various functions which the Medical Council or its Committees are to perform though we note that Medical Council is a high powered body looking after the medical education in the country.

(4) The petitioners have contended that by a judgment of a Bench of this Court in C.W. No. 1003/90 the elections of the office bearers of the Medical Council which had been held on 6/02/1990 had been set aside and the Court had ordered holding of fresh elections after updating the electoral rolls and framing the regulations. It is stated that the Administrator appointed by the Court did not perform his functions in accordance with law and the judgment as he wrongfully excluded the petitioners and others from taking part in the elections and at the same time also wrongfully included some other persons for taking part in the elections when they were not entitled to do so. The petitioners, therefore, say that the second and third respondents have been wrongly elected as President and Vice-President of the Medical Council and the elections should, therefore, be set aside. In fact in whole of the body of The petitioners the challenge is mainly to the election of respondents 2 and 3 as President and Vice-President of the Medical Council.

(5) Before we go into the submissions of the parties, we may at this stage set out in brief, background of the case.

(6) The three petitioners (petitioners 1, 2 and 3) in the present writ petition along with two others filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court,it being No. 1391/87. It was against the Medical Council as well as four more respondents one of them being Dr. A.K.N. Sinha, who is respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition. Dr. Sinha had been elected as President of the medical Council for the years 1985 to 1990. The challenge in that writ petition was that respondents therein were not competent to occupy various offices of the Medical Council or to exercise powers and privileges vested in the office bearers of the Medical Council. A learned Single Judge by order dated 11November 198 7 held that to be so and declared that respondents 2 to 5 had ceased to be the members of the Medical Council as representing the Patna,Bihar, Mithila and Magadh Universities under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. In coming to this conclusion the learned Single Judge examined the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and observed asunder: SECTION 7(1) lays it down that the President or the Vice-President of the Council shall hold office for a term not exceeding five years and not extending beyond the expiry of his term as member of the Council. Now when respondent No. 2 was elected as the President,he was a member of the Council having been elected from the constituency contemplated by Section 3(i)(b) of the Act. That constituency has been abolished and the natural effect is that respondent No. 2's membership of the Council qua the abolished constituency has expired. Having come in from a fresh constituency, he cannot cling on to an elective office secured by him when he represented a different constituency. This is the combined effect of Sections 3,3(2), 7(1) and 7(2) of the Act. Any other construction would beviolative not only of the language of the enactment, but also of the spirit underlying representative, democracy.

(7) This reasoning was upheld by a Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 21/11/1990 in C.W.P. No. 1003/90.

(8) In Appeal No. 283 of 1989 arising out of Writ Petition 3375/88,and filed by Dr. S.N. Deshmukh against the Medical Council and two others,a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by order dated 25/04/1989recorded that the Medical Council would constitute a committee for framing rules and regulations governing elections of the various posts of Medical Council and the committee was to frame regulations in that behalf within four months from that date, and till then "all such elections shall be by secret ballot and majority vote." It is not necessary to reproduce certain other minutes of that order except to note that the appellant did not press his appeal and the writ petition and he withdrew all the allegations contained in those proceedings. In pursuance thereof it is stated that the General Body of the Council approved the rules so framed in its meeting, held on 20/12/1989.

(9) Election to the President, Vice-President and the Executive Committee of the Medical Council were held on 6/02/1990. Dr. A.K.N. Sinha and Dr. P. Narasimha Rao were respectively elected as President and Vice-President. In the writ petition (No. 1003/90) filed on 26/03/1990 these elections were challenged. There were four petitioners in that writ petition and as many as 34 respondents, the last respondent being Union of India through the Secretary. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and added with the direction of the Court. Some of the respondents were those who had been elected to the Executive Committee and some whose very membership of the medical Council was under challenge. There were four petitioners, three of them are the same as in the present writ petition, being petitioners 1. 2 and 3and the fourth petitioner there was one Dr. Harcharan Singh. As noted above.that writ petition was decided on 21/11/1990. During the pendency of that writ petition, however, the Court with the consent of the parties appointedDr. A.K. Mukherjee, Additional Director General. Health Services, to act as Administrator of the Medical Council till disposal of the writ petition. He was to perform all day-to-date duties that were required to be performed by Secretary of the Medical Council and was to perform all normal functions of the medical Council. The Court pissed this order as Dr. P.S. Jain, who was Secretary to the Medical Council, had since superannuated. He was directed to hand over the charge to the Administrator.

(10) In its judgment in that petition the Court noted that the strength of the Medical Council was 120 members out of which 78 attended on the date of election. The Court in that judgment observed as under : (A)It rejected the argument of the respondents that every election either to the Council or by the Council can be challenged under Section 4(2) of the Act.(b) Alternative argument of the respondents that the alleged illegalities/irregularities in the elections could not be questioned as they were saved by Section 3(3) of the Act, was also rejected.(c) The Court examined the argument of the respondents that even assuming that there were some illegalities/irregularities in the elections, they did not materially affect the results inasmuch as the President had won by margin of 21 votes. Petitioners, however, alleged that the number of members ineligible to vote was as much as 24 and would, therefore, have materially affected the elections results. Petitioners had also contended that the persons nominating and seconding were also not valid members of the medical Council and so the nomination of the persons elected was not legal. Dealing with the argument that elections in the medical Council were comparable with the general elections under the Representation of People Act respecting the requirement as to whether the elections were materially affected because some members illegally participated in the elections, the Court observed that the two elections were materially different. the Court then dwelled upon the importance of the Medical Council.An important function to perform with the Medical Council was recognition of the institutes including its overseeing the medical education in whole of the country. Then the Court held asunder:"In the present elections out of 120 members only 78 members could be present and out of 78 members about 25members were legally not qualified to participate in the elections. These weighty considerations apart from the specific illegalities in the elections of the President, Vice-President and the members of the Executive Committee,leaves no alternative but to set aside the said elections and to order fresh elections."(d) The scheme of Section 7 of the Act is that Section 7(1) provide for the term of the President and the Vice-President; Sections 7(2) to 7(6) provide for such things as deemed vacation of membership, continuation of membership in the interregnum before a successor is elected or nominated, filling of casual vacancies and nomination/election three months prior to the expiry of five years term. Thus Sub-section (1) and Sub-sections (2) to (6)of Section 7 operate on two entirely different fields, i.e. President and Vice-President on the one hand and general membership on the other. Section 7(1) prescribes that the maximum term of President or Vice-President shall not exceed five years, but the term can be even shorter if before five years the term of a member of the Council expires, either by fresh election or nomination. The object of this provision is that the members whose term has expired as a member of the Council cannot act as the President or the Vice-President of the Council. These two offices are very important offices as they are ex-officio President and Vice-President of the Executive Committee which performs the executive functions of administration and several other important functions assigned to the Executive Committee by the Act. Dr. P. Narsimha Rao, Vice-President, has admittedly ceased to be a member of the medical faculty as early as 1972 but had been participating without being a member of the Council. He was elected as the Vice-President from 1985-1990 and again for a period of five years from 1990-1995. To say that he can continue as a member till has successor is appointed under Section 7(2) and could, therefore, be elected as a Vice-President is to cause a harm to the language of Section 7(1), the scheme of Section 7 and to the scheme of election under the Act.Thus, Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section provide for entirely different contingencies and Sub-section (2) cannot be pressed in service by a member who has ceased to be a member for a long period of 18 years. The provision of continuation ofmembership until the successor is elected or nominated is only as top-gap arrangement for a short duration and not meant for the continuation of membership perpetually and on that basis Presidentship or Vice-President ship perpetually. Sub-section (6) of Section 7 gives some indication regarding the stop-gap period asit lays down that three months prior to the expiry of the period of five years nomination or election of a successor has to be achieved ...Apart from this Sub-section (2) of Section 7 concerns only with the membership of a member. The opening words of the sub-section make the said provision subject to the other provisions of the section. Sub-section (2) is, therefore, controlled by Sub-section (3) which mandatorily lays down that an elected or nominated member shall be deemed to have vacated his seat if he ceases to be a member of the medical faculty of the University or ceases to be a person enrolled on the State Medical Register concerned.(e) Finally the Court gave the following directions :"During the course of the arguments we had directed the Administrator appointed by us to be present. He has in informed the Court that if fresh elections are to be held the same can be achieved within the period of 100 days. During a period of 60 days the process of elections and nominations,envisaged by Section 3, can be completed and the proper and correct electoral roll can be prepared. We, therefore,direct the Administrator, who is also the Additional DirectorGeneral, to start the process of updating the electoral rollimmediately. In the twin capacity which he enjoys the elections to the post of President, Vice-President, Executive Committee and the other bodies should be held and the entire process be completed within 100 days. We leave it to the elected body and the office-bearers either to ratify the decisions or reverse them, if necessary, taken in the meeting of the Council dated 14.3.1990."

(11) Dr. A .K.N.Sinha, it appears, filed a Special Leave Petition (No.2165 of 1991) against the judgment of this Court in Civil Writ 1003/90, but it further appears the Supreme Court did not grant say of the operation of thejudgment. Election process started in terms of the judgment. The Administrator sent letter of 23/11/1990 to all the Universities concerned requiring them to intimate to the Medical Council whether their existing representatives on the Council continue to be the members of their respective Faculties of Medicine and further requested them, in the event of seats lying vacant, to communicate the names of their representatives. The Administrator also wrote letter dated 22/11/1990 to the Secretaries of the State Governments concerned for intimating the names of their representatives to the MedicalCouncil. A letter of the same date was also addressed to the Central Government again requiring it to intimate the names of the representatives under the category of Registered Medical Graduates whose terms had since expired. the Administrator also wrote a letter dated 22/11/1990 to the Returning Officer appointed by the Central Government requesting him to hold the elections for seven seats as the term of the previous members had already expired under the category falling under Section 3(i)(d) of the Act. He sent various reminders as well. Some did not respond to his letters. The Administrator,therefore, approached this Court for suitable directions (C.M. 336/91) as he said he had already announced the election programme and elections were to be held on 4/03/1991. This Court, after hearing Counsel for the Administrator, the petitioners and Dr. B. Ray Choudhury, the fourth respondent,passed the following order on 24/01/1991 :

"C.M.336/91 in C.W. 1003/90Pursuant to the directions of this Court the Administrator has announced the election programme and the elections are to be held on 4/03/1991. In this application the Administrator submits that19 Universities have not yet elected their representatives under Section 3(b) of the Act and some Universities have not yet clarified whether their elections of their representatives are either by Court orSenate. The Administrator should bring to the notice, of the Universities that the provisions of Section 3 are mandatory and if the provisions are not complied with under Section 7 of the Act the erstwhile members or the nominees would not be able to participate in the elections. It is noted that the Administrator has written about5 letters to each of the University without much response. This would be treated as final letter to them and all the nominations as on the notified date of 2/03/1991 should form the electoral roll for the elections to be held on 4/03/1991. Application isallowed."

(12) The Administrator wrote letter to the petitioners stating that in terms of the judgment dated 21/11/1990 in Writ Petition 1003/90 they were not valid members of the Medical Council. This was by separate letters dated 1/02/1991. Petitioners were told, however, that in case a fresh process with regard to election or nomination, as the case may be, was concluded and their names were notified by the Central Government by 2/03/1991,their names would be included in the electoral roll as a member of the Medical , and they would be entitled to vote on 4/03/1991 which date had been fixed for holding the elections. Earlier by a communication dated 19/01/1991 the Administrator had informed these petitioners of the meeting of the Medical Council to he held on 4/03/1991. This letter the Administrator. therefore, withdrew.

(13) The fourth petitioner Dr. K.G. Mittal filed a suit against the medical Council of India before the Civil Judge, Meerut, seeking a declaration that he was a duly elected member of the Medical Council under Section 3(i)(d)of the Act and also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants from holding the meeting fixed for 4/03/1991. By order dated 27/02/1991 Civil Judge, Meerut, stayed the elections which were scheduled to be held on 4/03/1991. Dr. S.N. Deshmukh and others also filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court (Writ Petition No. 686/01) against the Medical Council of India and others and following are the minutes of the order dated 6/03/1991: "ALLOWED to be withdrawn on application of Mr. Radhakrishnan,Counsel for the petitioners, as the dispute about order passed by Delhi High Court is pending before Supreme Court and petitioners can raise issue of disqualification also before Supreme Court."

(14) The Administrator appointed by this Court was in real dilemma.He would not know if to hold the elections in terms of the judgment of this Court or to stay his hands in view of the order of the Civil Judge, Meerut. He appeared to be a much harassed man. He approached this Court for some solace by filing an application (C.M. 1147/91). This application he filed on 5/03/1991 which was adjourned to 19/03/1991 on which date he was told that in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 14/03/1991, no further orders were necessary on his application. We do not have on our record this order of 14/03/1991.

(15) The first respondent in its return in the present writ petition has said that this Court did not pass any order on the application of the Administrator (C.M. 1147/91) as according to the Court the challenge to its judgment was pending in the Supreme Court and that City Civil Judge, Meerut, was not under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The Administrator,on advice, filed transfer petitions to the Supreme Court of India against the suit pending before the Civil Judge, Meerut, as well as writ petition pending in the Bombay High Court. In view of the mandamus of this Court in C.W. 1003/90,the Administrator did hold the elections on 4/03/1991 and in deference to the order of the City Civil Judge, Meerut, the results of the elections were notdeclared.

(16) In the meanwhile, on 7/02/1991, the petitioners again approached this Court in C.W. 1003/90 (C.M. 665/91) praying that the Administrator be directed to remove all ineligible members from the electoral roll and he also directed to fill up all the vacancies under the provisions of Sections 3(c), (b) and (d) of the Act and direction was also sought that the concerned authorities be required to hold the elections of Registered Medical Practitioners in their respective States and only those nominated members be permitted to participate in the elections. This application was, however, dismissed as withdrawn as it was not supported by a proper affidavit.Another application (C.M. 901/91) was, therefore, filed. This application was, however, dismissed as withdrawn on 19/02/1991 with liberty to the petitioners/applicants to take appropriate steps.

(17) The Supreme Court gave its order on I August 1991. The Special Leave Petition filed by Dr. A.K.N. Sinha had been held to have become infructuous inasmuch as elections had been held. This was dismissed as infructuous. But the contentions raised were kept open. The civil suit filed by the fourth petitioner in the City Civil Court, Meerut, was allowed to be dismissed as withdrawn though the Court observed that the suit was not maintainable andthe Civil Judge had even issued notice of contempt of Court against the Administrator and all others who participated in the elections for having held the elections on 4/03/1991 in spite of the stay granted by him. The Supreme Court discharged the contempt notices as well. The transfer petition for transfer of the writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court was also held to have become infructuous inasmuch as the writ petition in the Bombay High Court had since been dismissed as withdrawn. The Supreme Court directed the Administrator to declare the results of the elections forthwith. Results of the elections so declared were brought to the notice of this Court in C.W. 1003/90 by the Administrator by filing an application (C.M.4181/91) on 7/08/1991. He also sought his discharge. The Court observed that since the elections had already been held, the function of the Administrator was over and the Administrator had handed over the charge to the Executive Council. He was, therefore, discharged.

(18) Not satisfied with the election results, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition on 23/09/1991. The contentions raised are that(1) before holding elections the Administrator did not prepare a valid electoral roll in terms of the Act and the judgment in C.W. 1003/90; (2) four of members of the Medical Council who took part in the elections were wrongly included in the electoral roll and 16 members were similarly wrongfully excluded; (3) it was immaterial if the President and the Vice-President were elected unanimously by51 members present and voting in the meeting as the question if the inclusion or exclusion of the members materially affected the election was not relevant in view of the judgment of this Court in C.W. 1003/90; and lastly, (4) the Administrator acted in partisan manner.

(19) All these contentions were countered by the respondents. They said the Administrator followed the decision of this Court in C.W. 1003/90 in letter and spirit and took all possible steps to hold the elections within the stipulated period against all odds. They said the petition was malafide and filed by some of the disgruntled erstwhile members of the Medical Council to put obstacles in the smooth working of the Medical Council. They said even assuming that there was error on the part of the Administrator including or excluding certain members, that would not be quite material to judge the validity of the elections and they also relied on the earlier decision of this Court.

(20) We have set out the relevant provisions of the Act. To us the language appears to he quite explicit. Still disputes have been raised on the correct interpretation of Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Act. In the earlier judgment in C.W. 1003/90 this Court observed with reference to Section 7 of the Act that the President and Vice-President of the Medical Council though elected turn a term of five years would cease to hold those posts if they cease to be the members of the Medical Council. It was held that if it could be said that President or Vice-President could hold that office as he would continue to be the member till his successor was appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 would he to cause harm to the language of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 andthe scheme of the section itself. The Court also observed that Sub-section (2)of Section 7 could not be availed of by a member if he ceases to be a member for a long period and if in the meanwhile his successor had not been elected ornominated. The Court observed that the provision of continuation of membership until the successor was elected or nominated was only a stop-gap arrangement for a short duration and not meant for the continuation of the member-ship perpetually and on that basis holding office of the President or Vice-President perpetually. In coming to this conclusion strength was drawn from Sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act which deals with the starting of process of holding election or nomination of a member when the term of the existing member is to expire. We ourselves felt a little difficulty in appreciating this line of reasoning in the earlier case. We would have thought that under Subsection (2) of Section 7 a member would have continued for a term of five years from the date of his nomination or election or until his successor shall have been duly nominated or elected, whichever is longer, and Sub-section (6) does not appear to control Sub-section (2), but a member who holds office for a term of five years or continues to be so till his successor is appointed or nominated would lose his membership altogether if he ceases to fulfill the basic conditions as set out in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act.Nevertheless, the view which the earlier Bench took is not something which is not possible and in this petition we will rather follow the same, rather to work hard again on the interpretation of various sub-sections of section 7 the language of which appears to be quite candid. To us it appears that Sub-sections (2) and (3) operate in different fields and Sub-section (2) would apply to all the clauses of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 as mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. We will confine ourselves in the present writ petition to see if the Administrator had complied with the directions in the judgment and the interpretation of law as given therein and also if his actions are within the provisions of the Act for the purpose of holding elections which job was enjoined upon him. In the earlier case the Court did not want to draw a comparison between the elections under the Act and those held under the Representation of People Act and said two were materially different. But the Court then proceeded to note that out of 120 members only 78 members could be present, and out of those present about 25 members were not the legal members of the medical Council. The Court observed that these were weighty considerations apart from the other illegalities. In these circumstances, the Court directed fresh elections. That is not a situation now existing in the present petition before us. We may now at this stage examine if some members were wrongly included or excluded from taking part in the elections.

(21) Petitioners say that (1) Dr. Bhaskar Ray Choudhury, (2) Dr. R.S.Thind,(3)Dr. A.M. Krishna Urs, and (4) Dr. R.K. Srivastava, have been wrongly included by the Administrator as members of the Medical Council.Out of these, Dr. Thind and Dr. Srivastava did not participate even in the elections. Contention of the petitioners is that all these four persons ceased to the members of their respective Medical Faculties of the Universities and they,therefore, ceased to be the members of the Medical Council. Except for stating that Dr. Ray Choudhury and Dr. Thind were declared ineligible to be the members by the earlier judgment of this Court, there are no other particulars.Respondents have placed on record a copy of the telegram received from the Punjabi University, Patiala, wherein it was mentioned that Dr. Thind still continued to be the member of the Faculty of Medicine of the University. In the endorsement confirming the telegram it was stated that Dr. Thind was member of Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot, and continued as a representative of the Punjabi University in Medical Council of India and also as a member of the Faculty of Medicine of the Punjabi University. Calcutta University also certified that Dr. B. Ray Choudhury was the representative of the University of Calcutta to the Medical Council of India and was continuing as a member of the Medical Faculty of the University and would continue to be so beyond 4/03/1991 as well. A telegram had also been received from the Poona University that Dr. R.K. Srivastava was still a member of the Medical Faculty of that University. A similar intimation had been received from the University of Mysore that Dr. A.M. Krishna Urs was continuing to be a member of the Faculty of Medicine of that University. We do not think anything further was required of the Administrator to go into the question that eventhough these four doctors continued to be on the Medical Faculties of the irrespective Universities, the Administrator was still to find out if they had been duly elected as per rules.

(22) The petitioners say that out of 16 members which had been wrongly excluded, there was serious contest with regard to 13 members only. It was said that 7 members falling under the category under Section 3 did not earn any disqualification as applicable to their group under Sub-section (3)of Section 7 of the Act and would continue to be the members under Subsection (2) of that Section 3 persons were elected under the group under Section 3(1)(c) and again they had not earned any disqualification under Section 7and continued to be the members under Section 7 of the Act. Petitioners said that the Court had already held in the earlier writ petition that election ofDr. P. Narsimha Rao to the post of Vice-President was vitiated and he could not continue to be the Vice-President of the Medical Council. Then it was said that two members who were duly nominated under Section 3 had also been wrongfully excluded by the Administrator and that Section 7(3) did not provide any bar to the members nominated under Section 3 of the Act.Lastly, it was said that Dr. H.B. Rajshekhar was also wrongfully excluded as he continued to member of the Medical Faculty of Karnataka University and had been duly elected by a Senate or a Court of the University. We do not think the petitioners are right in their submissions. The earlier judgment on which the petitioners heavily rely had clearly held that the provision of continuation of membership until the successor was elected or nominated was only as top-gap arrangement for a short duration and was not meant for continuation of the membership perpetually. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the Administrator in excluding all these 16 members whose membership had ceased much earlier. No advantage can also be drawn from the fact that earlier the Administrator addressed letters to them on the surmise that they were members but these were certainly withdrawn in view of the interpretation given by this Court to Section 7 of the Act.

(22) Now the case of Dr. P. Narsimha Rao, who had been elected Vice-President and though excluded by the Administrator, is on a differentfooting. It will be seen that the Administrator had addressed letters dated 1/02/1991 to all the members who were sought to be excluded in which It was mentioned that in case a fresh process with regard to election or nomination, as the case may be, was concluded and the names were notified by the Central Government by 2/03/1991, their names will be included in the electoral roll as a member to the Medical Council and he will be entitled to vote on 4/03/1991. The State of Andhra nominated Dr. P. Narsimha Rounder Section 3 of the Act in place of Dr.C.S. Bhaskaran who was the earlier nominee of the State of Andhra under this group. Dr. Rao's name was,therefore, rightly included in the electoral roll. Moreover, Dr. C.S. Bhaskaran,whose name had been excluded in the list of 16 members, was a nominee under Section 3 and he had as a matter of fact resigned and in his place Dr. Rao had been nominated.

(24) Petitioners then said that out of total strength of 120 members,notices were not sent or withdrawn illegally to 16 members and 4 members were illegally included in the election and 51 only participated. They said the Administrator did not take any steps to fill up the vacancies in the case ofmembers falling in the group under Sections 3 and 3(i)(d) and large number of vacancies were in the class of university group under Section 3(i)(d).We do think petitioners could say all this in view of the fact, as the record would show, that the Administrator made all possible efforts to prepare the electoral roll in terms of Section 3 of the Act, and he held the elections after taking directions from the Court in the earlier writ petition. Elections of the President and Vice-President have been unanimous and so also all of the members of the Executive Committee except two members. This fact is quite relevant for our purpose if four members allegedly wrongfully included and sixteen members allegedly wrongfully excluded would have made the results of the elections otherwise.

(25) The Administrator, we find, has acted in a forthright manner and we commend his efforts in holding the elections in terms of the Court's order against many odds.The challenge of the petitioners to the elections results must, therefore,fail.

(26) This is third time that elections of Dr. A.K..N. Sinha as President and Dr. P. Narsimha Rao as Vice-President are sought to be set aside by The petitionersers though they were successful in earlier two petitions, one in Bombay High Court and the other in this Court. We feel the petitioners should not have filed this writ petition since the elections had been held by the Administrator appointed by the Court and under the orders of the Court after taking necessary directions for holding the same. After the Administrator excluded the names of the petitioners as valid members, first three petitioners filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court and the fourth petitioner before the CivilJudge, Meerut. A brief history of the litigation has already been set out above.Since obstacles were sought to be put in the smooth functioning of the Administrator for the purpose of holding elections and first he received notice from the Bombay High Court and then a restraint order from the Meerut Court, and after the election results had been declared under orders of the Supreme Court,the Supreme Court directed that any person aggrieved by the elections was at liberty to approach Delhi High Court and no other Court in India would have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or petition relating to the elections of the medical Council. The petitioners have approached Delhi High Court but we find their grievance is quite misplaced. We may also note that in spite of adverse orders made by the Supreme Court against the Meerut Court, the petitioners have nevertheless said in their affidavit that the Court at Meerut had rightly passed the order of injunction.

(27) During the course of arguments we found a person instructing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and we thought he was one of the petitioners, but on enquiry we were told that he was Dr. P.S. Jain, who was earlier the Secretary of the Medical Council and in whose place the Administrator had been appointed and the Court in the earlier writ petition directed that he would not act as a Secretary or in any other capacity in regard to the Medical Council though the latter part of the order was modified on a subsequent date. We also find that in the order of Meerut Court it is mentioned that Dr. P.S. Jain assisted Counsel for the plaintiff (petitioner No. 4). This led the Counsel for the respondents to remark that Dr. P.S.. Jain was behind the present litigation and that the petition was malafide as Dr. Jam though having superannuated from the post of Secretary of the Medical Council was still intermeddling with its affairs and had to be removed and injuncted under Court's orders. We do not say anything on this as there is nothing on the record.

(28) This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 4,500.00. Rule is discharged,