Dr.V.Dharmalingam vs Union Of India And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 3809 Del

$~66.

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       W.P.(C) 5620/2011 & CM No.11478/2011 (for stay).

        DR.V.DHARMALINGAM                                        ..... Petitioner
                    Through:           Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv.

                                    versus

        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                   ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC & Mr.
                               Abhimanyu Kumar, Adv. for UOI.
        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

                                 ORDER

% 08.08.2011

1. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the Central Government to take

action against the respondent no.3 Shri Raghunandan Sharma under Section

31 of the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970. It is the contention of

the petitioner that the respondent no.3 was registered in the State of

Rajasthan since the year 1984 and became a member of the Central Council

in the year 1994; that he has on 27th January, 2011 got registered in the State

of Goa mentioning his residential address as "C/o Shivaprasad, R/o House

No.383, 1st Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Talaulim Ponda, Goa".

1/

2. The counsel for the petitioner has first contended that under Section 5

r/w Section 31 of the Act, the respondent no.3 could not be a member in two

States. However a reading of Section 31 on the basis whereof grievance is

made shows that the same does not prohibit membership of two States. The

counsel also so agrees. He however contends that the respondent no.3

inspite of changing his place of his residence and of practice to Goa, has not

notified the Central Council of the same and has thus become liable for

action under Section 31.

3. However there is no averment in the petition to the said effect also

that the respondent no.3 has changed his place of residence or practice to

Goa. Reliance in this regard is placed only on the registration in the State of

Goa. However according to the petitioner himself the registration in the

State of Goa is given as "C/o Shivaprasad". The counsel has been unable to

show that to be enrolled in State of Goa, the respondent no.3 necessarily had

to have his place of residence or practice in Goa.

4. Even otherwise, the petitioner has challenged the continuance of the

respondent no.3 in Central Government for the last many years in a petition

stated to be pending before the Apex Court and for this reason also it is not

deemed appropriate to allow the second window to be opened.

2/

5. The counsel for the respondent no.1 appearing on advance notice has

also contended that the petitioner has neither any right nor any locus to

claim the relief in as much as the petitioner has not shown as to how he is

affected.

6. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner as a

practitioner in the Ayurveda/Unani/Siddha system of medicines and is as

such concerned. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has however rightly

pointed out that the petition has not been filed in public interest and the

petitioner without showing any right of relief, would not be entitled to

maintain the petition.

7. The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J

AUGUST 08, 2011 pp.

3/