COCP No.596 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.596 of 2009
Date of decision: 26.10.2009
Vaidya Jyoti Arora and anr. ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ms. S. Jalja, IAS, Secretary
to Govt. of India and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate with Ms. Rachna Arora, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate and Ms. Sujita Ray, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
As per the averments made in this petition, this Court vide
order dated 12.8.2002 passed in CWP No.9585 of 2001, directed the
Registrar, Board of Ayurveda and Unani system of Medicines, Punjab to
complete the process of updating the State Register of Medical
Practitioners of Ayurveda and Unani System of the State of Punjab within
three months from the date of receipt of copy of the aforesaid order.
However, the aforesaid time was extended upto 31.10.2003 vide order
dated 25.7.2003 passed by this Court in Review Application No.289 of
2002 in CWP No.9585 of 2001.
The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the
respondents have not complied with the aforesaid directions passed by this
Court and the net effect of non-compliance of the aforesaid directions is
that for the last more than one decade, no elections had taken place in the
State of Punjab to the statutory bodies and it is only respondent No.5 who
has been benefitted by the aforesaid act of non-compliance.
COCP No.596 of 2009 2
Show cause notice was issued to respondent No.4 and 5 only.
In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court,
separate replies have been filed on behalf of the aforesaid respondents.
Respondent No.5 in his affidavit has stated that he has no
objection if the fresh elections are held by the Department of Ayurveda,
Yoga & Naturopathy Unani, Sidha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) and Central
Council of Indian Medicines (CCIM). He has further stated that he has been
arrayed as a respondent wrongly as he was not a party in the main civil
writ petition and no direction was issued by this Court to him. It has been
further stated by the aforesaid respondent that he has nothing to do with
the election process and the same is to be got conducted by the
Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy Unani, Sidha and
Homeopathy, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India,
New Delhi with the help of President and Executive Member of Central
Council of Indian Medicines.
Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners states that the petitioners are not claiming any relief against the
aforesaid respondent and therefore, his name may be deleted from the
array of parties. Ordered accordingly.
Respondent No.4 in his reply has submitted that the
petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, as in
pursuance of the directions dated 12.8.2002 and 25.7.2003 passed by this
Court, the State register of Medical Practitioners was updated by the then
Registrar, Board of Ayurvedic & Unani Systems, Punjab, Chandigarh and
copies of the amended register were submitted to the Secretary to
Government, Punjab Research and Medical Education Punjab,
Chandigarh, vide letter dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure R-4/2). It has been
submitted in the reply that the process of updating the register maintained
COCP No.596 of 2009 3
by the Board is an ongoing process and is being updated from time to time
because on receipt of information regarding the death of any practitioner,
the name of such practitioner is deleted from the Register and on acquiring
the requisite notification, the name of the candidate is included in the
Register. It has been further submitted in the reply that even the
Government of India vide notification dated 8.12.2001 (Annexure R-4/3)
appointed the Returning Officer to conduct the elections. However, the
elections could not be conducted for want of funds.
The aforesaid facts as mentioned in the reply filed by
respondent No.4 have not been controverted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. Thus, in view of the fact that the respondents have since
updated the Register of Medical Practitioners vide order dated 27.10.2003
(Annexure R-4/2), the directions passed by this Court stand complied with.
The grievance raised by the petitioners with regard to non
holding of elections for over a period of one decade cannot be gone into by
this Court as there was no such direction passed by this Court in CWP
No.9585 of 2001.
Dismissed.
Rule discharged.
October 26, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE