IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.44285-44288/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. DR. SHET RAJKUMAR RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O PLOT NO.F-104, KEERTHY HORMONY APARTMENT, RAGHAVENDRA CIRCLE NEAR KOSHY HOSPITAL RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU – 16 2. DR.GOUDAR AMAREGOUDA S/O MAHANTAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O C/O DR.SHANKARAGOUDA NO.3, JYOTHI NAGAR, 3RD CROSS CHIKKABETNALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH 3. DR.RAJASHEKHAR GANIGER AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO.10/C, MATHRUNANDAN BEHIND UMAMAHESHWARI KALYAN MANTAPA, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY 2ND STAGE, BELLARI 4. DR.PATIL DEVENDRA GOUDA MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O C/O DR.SHANKARAGOUDA NO.3, JYOTHI NAGAR, 3RD CROSS CHIKKABETNALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY/APPELLATE AUTHORITY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH IRCS BUILDING RED CROSS ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER CCIM ELECTION & MISSION DIRECTOR NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ANAND RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU – 6 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KRISHNA S DIXIT, ASG FOR R1; SRI.KIRAN KUMAR T.L., AGA FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 28 OF THE INDIAN MEDICINE CENTRAL COUNCIL (ELECTION), SECOND AMENDMENT RULES 2012 VIDE ANNEXURE – B AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings under Rule 28 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election), Second amendment Rules, 2012. The petitioner in that regard is further seeking that the respondent No.1 be directed to recount the ballot papers of CCIM Elections 2017 relating to Karnataka, afresh.
2. A perusal of the petition averments and the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the parties would indicate that the dispute relating to Elections held to the CCIM is to be considered in the manner as provided under Rule 28 which is brought in by amendment. Since, the Inquiry Officer as provided therein under Sub-section (1) has not been appointed by the Central Government, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court and it is in that light, the petitioners have sought for the consequential relief relating to recounting of the ballot papers.
3. In that regard, having taken note that through Sub-section (2) onwards to Rule 28 though a time frame has been fixed with regard to the manner in which the election dispute is required to be considered by the Inquiry Officer, Sub-section (1) thereof does not indicate any time frame for appointment of the Inquiry Officer.
4. Therefore, in that circumstance, I am of the opinion that, since the manner and the conduct of election disputes is regulated by the said Rule, the consideration as to whether a recounting is required or any other relief is to be granted is a matter which is to be taken note in the procedure as contemplated therein. Accordingly, consideration of the consequential relief in these petitions at this stage would not arise, as it would amount to putting the cart before the horse.
5. However, to ensure that the petitioners are not prejudiced and the dispute relating to election is considered in a time frame as has been provided under Rule 28, at this juncture, I find it necessary to direct the respondent No.1 to appoint the Inquiry Officer within a time frame, so that the time frame as provided in the remaining Sub-sections are adhered to in the said proceedings.
6. Hence, the respondent No.1 is directed to appoint the Inquiry Officer in the manner as provided under Rule 28 (1) of the Rules within three weeks from this day.
The petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST