Dr. Sanjeev Goyal vs Union Of India And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1367 Del

$~48.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+       W.P.(C) 2398/2017 and CM APPL. 10350/2017
        DR. SANJEEV GOYAL                               ..... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
                           with Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Advocate

                           versus
        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                     ..... Respondents
                      Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi, Advocate with
                      Ms. Shubhi Khare, Advocate for R-3/CCIM.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                           ORDER

% 14.03.2017

1. The present petition has been placed before this Court on urgent mentioning.

2. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondent No.3/Central Council of Indian Medicine (in short 'CCIM') to debar the members of the Council who are surviving on extensions, from participating in the proposed elections, contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 24.02.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.33/2009 entitled KB Nagur vs. Union of India

3. Ms. Ahmadi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/CCIM, who appears on advance notice, states that the present petition has rendered infructuous inasmuch as the elections to the posts of President and Vice President (Ayurveda) in CCIM have taken place today and counting of

ballots is going on. She states that a similar petition as filed by the petitioner herein is pending consideration before a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court (LPA No.388/2017 entitled Bharatkumar Khodabhai Boghara vs. Union of India), wherein directions have been issued that votes of the appellants therein will be kept in a sealed cover and the respondent shall not declare the results of the President and Vice President without the permission of the Court. She states that the counting process is likely to be over in a few minutes from now and the result shall be communicated to the counsel appearing for CCIM in the Gujarat High Court for being placed before the Division Bench. She, therefore, states that nothing survives in the present petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the respondent No.3/CCIM, he does not wish to press the present petition. He, however, reserves the right of the petitioner to challenge the results of the elections, in accordance with law.

5. Leave, as prayed for, is granted. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn alongwith the pending application.

HIMA KOHLI, J MARCH 14, 2017 rkb