WP/25775/2009 of Dr. K. Krishna Kumar Vs Government of India on 29 December 2009

ORDER:

The Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 provides forconstitution of the Veterinary Council of India and other relatedmatters. Elections to the Council are to be held periodically. The 1[st]respondent issued a notification, dated 12.10.2009, proposing toconduct elections, through the Returning Officer, the 3[rd] respondentherein. 19.10.2009 is stipulated as the last date for filing nominations. 30.11.2009 is the date of polling and the counting is to take place onthe next day. The petitioner is a Veterinary Doctor and Member of theCouncil, and intends to contest in the forthcoming elections. Hisgrievance is that, the list of members from the State of Andhra Pradeshwas not updated, in spite of necessary information having beenfurnished by the President of the A.P. State Veterinary Council, the 4[th]respondent, and that the same would have an adverse effect on theelectoral process.

The petitioner states that long before the notification wasissued, the Draft Electoral Roll was published, on 31.03.2009, and onthe basis of the objections received in relation thereto, the 4[th]respondent has updated the list of members and forwarded the sameto the 2[nd] respondent vide covering letter, dated 20.08.2009 along withCompact Disk (CD) containing the corrected addresses, and still, hedid not take any steps. Reference is made to a letter, dated17.11.2009, addressed by the 4[th] respondent, wherein it wascomplained that 90% of the registered Veterinarians, including thePresident of the State Council, did not receive the ballot papers.

Similar complaints are said to have been received from other states,such as Gujarat. The petitioner has furnished an updated list ofVeterinarians from the state. With this background, the petitioner praysfor a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 inproposing to conduct the elections, in pursuance of the impugnednotification, without updating the process of the members, as illegal,arbitrary and unconstitutional and prays for a consequential direction.

Separate counter-affidavits are filed, by respondents 1 and 3,respondent No.2 and respondent No.4. In all the counter-affidavits, thedetails of election program, the publication of notification and othersteps taken in pursuance thereof, are stated. An objection is raised asto the maintainability of the writ petition. In his counter-affidavit, the 2[nd] respondent admitted that the 4[th] respondent has sent a CD,furnishing the names and addresses of all the members of that unit, butwithout any remarks, as to any change of addresses. On account ofthat reason, it is stated that no action could be taken.

Heard Sri Ch.Danamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner,A.Samir Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, andSmt.C.Laxmi Kumari, learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent.

Preparation of a valid voters’ list is an important step in anyelection process. If the Electoral Roll is defective, whether on accountof the exclusion of names of eligible electors, or for inclusion ofineligible voters, the entire election process would be adverselyeffected. This is particularly so when the elections relate toprofessional and specialized bodies, where the right to vote isconferred on specially qualified persons. The address of a voterassumes importance, wherever, the ballot papers are sent to him, bypost.

The elections became due to the Veterinary Council, andaccordingly, steps were initiated for election of 11 members. Theprocess commenced in the month of March, 2009 and all the Stateunits were required to update the lists and forward the same to the 2[nd]respondent.

On receiving the intimation, the 4[th] respondent displayed the same attheir office, and received objections from the concerned members. Itwas found that fairly large number of Veterinarians, who are membersof the

4[th] respondent, have changed their residences, be it on account of theposting, transfers or settling residences etc. After receiving thenecessary information, the 4[th] respondent updated the addresses andforwarded the same to the 2[nd] respondent for necessary action. Thiswas, however, not acted upon by the 2[nd] respondent. The reasonstated by it is, as under:

“The State Council sent a CD of the whole StateVeterinary Register of Andhra Pradesh containing names ofall the registered Veterinary practitioners without any remarksof change of address. Hence, the Council has not consideredthis CD for updating the address. As the information providedby the Andhra Pradesh State Veterinary Council in the form ofCD did not contain any remark regarding change ofaddresses of Registered Veterinary Practitioners in the StateVeterinary Practitioners Register, the same was in contrary toRule 7(4) of the IVC Rules, and hence was not considered formaking amendments in the Electoral Roll.”

The only objection is that the remarks for change of addresseswere not mentioned. This is just untenable. There cannot be anyremarks for change of addresses. At any rate, no further informationwas required from the 4[th] respondent and the old list was acted upon.

After the election notification was published, the 4[th] respondentaddressed a letter, dated 17.11.2009, to the 2[nd] respondent. It is briefin its content, but connotes the serious lapse in the entire process. Itreads as under:

“I regret to state that about 90% of RegisteredVeterinarians have not received ballot papers till to date,giving raise to suspicion of rigging of election process, I toohave not received my ballot paper.

I request to kindly examine the issue for renderingjustice to the election process.”

If 90% of the existing members, and in particular the Presidentof a State unit, did not receive ballot papers, the election, to that extentis bound to be farcical. Respondents 2 and 3 appear to be almostinsensitive for such a serious lapse. The poll did not take place, onaccount of the interim order granted by this Court, insofar as it relatesto the members of the A.P. State Council, i.e. the 4[th] respondent. Evennow, the remedial steps can be taken. Ballot papers can be sent to theupdated addresses by postponing only the date of poll, even whileretaining the other election program in tact. No prejudice would becaused to any one, on account of such a step. On the other hand, theelection would become perfect and meaningful.

Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the 2[nd] respondent isdirected to fix another date of polling for the Veterinarians, who are themembers of the 4[th] respondent, and send ballot papers to theaddresses furnished in the Compact Disk, forwarded by the 4[th]respondent. It is needless to mention that the ballot papers sent by it tosuch addresses, on earlier occasion, shall stand cancelled. Thecounting of the votes shall take place, after completion of the polling,as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt.29-12-2009.GJ

_____________________

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.