D. P. Wadhwa, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 ofthe Constitution the petitioners numbering four seek a writ or direction forsetting aside the elections of the Executive Committee including that of thepresident and Vice-President of the Medical Council of India which electionswere held on 4/03/1991. Another direction sought is that Medical Councilof India, the first respondent, to update its electoral roll in accordance with theprovisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short the Act ) andthen for holding of elections as per law. Yet another direction sought is thatrespondents 4,5,15 and 16 were not entitled to participate in the activities ofthe first respondent as they had ceased to be members of the Council of thefirst respondent by operation of law. Two more directions are also sought : (1) for setting aside the minutes dated 4/03/1991 of the General Bodymeeting of the Medical Council of the first respondent, and (2) for setting asidethe minutes of the Executive Committee of the date 20/08/1991 andgeneral Body Meetings of the dates 21 and 22/08/1991 of the first respondent. Since the minutes of the meetings of these dates had not been filed alongwith the petition, prayers thereto, therefore, were neither pressed nor could begranted. There are as many as 18 respondents to the petition. First respondent,as noted above, is the Medical Council of India (for short the Medical Council )which is constituted by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act andperforms various functions and duties under the Act. The second and thirdrespondents are respectively the President and Vice President of the Medicalcouncil. Respondents 4 to 16 are those against whom it is alleged that eitherthey were wrongly included or excluded as members of the Medical Council. Respondent No. 17 was acting as Administrator under the orders of the Courtin an earlier writ petition (C. W. 1003/90 decided on 21/11/1990 ). Respondent No. 18 is Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Healthand Family Welfare. Respondent No. 17 was acting as Administrator under the orders of the Courtin an earlier writ petition (C. W. 1003/90 decided on 21/11/1990 ). Respondent No. 18 is Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Healthand Family Welfare. ( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed to deal with the contentions of the petitioners, itwill be appropriate to set out certain provisions of the Act dealing with theconstitution and composition of the Medical Council (Section 3), the mode ofelection (Section 4), restrictions on nomination and membership (Section 5),incorporation of the Medical Council (Section 6), and the term of office ofpresident, Vice President and the Members of the Medical Council (Section 7): "3. (1) The Central Government shall cause to be constituted acouncil consisting of the following members, namely : (a) one member from each State other than a Union Territory,to be nominated by the Central Government in consultationwith the State Government concerned; (b) one member from each University, to be elected fromamongst the members of the medical faculty of the University by members of the Senate of the University or in casethe University has no Senate by members of the Court; (c) one member from each State in which a State Medicalregister is maintained, to be elected from amongst themselves by persons enrolled on such Register who possess themedical qualifications included in the First or the Secondschedule or in Part II of the Third Schedule; (d) seven members to be elected from amongst themselves bypersons enrolled on any of the State Medical Registers whopossess the medical qualifications included in Part I of thethird Schedule; (e) eight members to be nominated by the Central Government. (2) The President and Vice-President of the Council shall be electedby the members of the Council from amongst themselves. (3) No act done by the Council shall be questioned on the groundmerely of the existence of any vacancy in, or any defect in theconstitution of the Council". "4. (2) The President and Vice-President of the Council shall be electedby the members of the Council from amongst themselves. (3) No act done by the Council shall be questioned on the groundmerely of the existence of any vacancy in, or any defect in theconstitution of the Council". "4. (1) An election under clause (b), clause (c) or clause (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 3 shall be conducted by the Centralgovernment in accordance with such rules as may be made byit in this behalf, and any rules, so made may provide that pend-ing the preparation of the Indian Medical Register in accordancewith the provisions of this Act, the members referred to inclause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 may be nominated bythe Central Government instead of being elected as providedtherein. (2) Where any dispute arises regarding any election to the Council,it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decisionshall be final. " "5. (1) No person shall be eligible for nomination under clause (a) ofsub-section (1) of Section 3 unless he possesses any of the medicalqualifications included in the First and Second Schedules, residesin the State concerned, and, where a State Medical Register ismaintained in that State is enrolled on that register. ""6. The Council so constituted shall be body corporate by the nameof the Medical Council of India, having perpetual succession anda common seal, with power to acquire and hold property, bothmoveable and immovable, and to contract, and shall by the saidname sue and be sued. ""7. (1) The President or Vice-President of the Council shall hold officefor a term not exceeding five years and not extending beyondthe expiry of his term as member of the Council. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Section, a member shall holdoffice for a term of five years from the date of his nominationor election or until his successor shall have been duly nominatedor elected, whichever is longer. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Section, a member shall holdoffice for a term of five years from the date of his nominationor election or until his successor shall have been duly nominatedor elected, whichever is longer. (3) An elected or nominated member shall be deemed to have vacated his seat if he is absent without excuse, sufficient in the opinionof the Council, from three consecutive ordinary meetings of thecouncil or, in the case of a member elected under clause (b) ofsub-section (1) of Section 3, if he ceases to be a member of themedical faculty of the University concerned, or in the case of amember elected under clause (c) or clause (d) of that sub-section,if he ceases to be a person enrolled on the State Medical Registerconcerned. (4) A casual vacancy in the Council shall be filled by nomination orclection, as the case may be, and the person nominated or elected to fill the vacancy shall hold office only for the remainder ofthe term for which the member whose place he takes was nominated or elected. (5) Members of the Council shall be eligible for re-nomination orre-election. (6) Where the said term of five years is about to expire in respect ofany member, a successor may be nominated or elected at anytime within three months before the said term expires but heshall not assume office until the said term has expired. " ( 3 ) SECTION 8 of the Act provides for meetings of the Medical Counciland Section 9 for constitution of various committees and servants of the Medicalcouncil. The Executive Committee under Section 10 consists of President,vice-President, who are the ex officio members, and not less than seven and notmore than eight other members elected from the Medical Council from amongstits members. We are not concerned in this writ petition with various functionswhich the Medical Council or its Committees are to perform though we notethat Medical Council is a high powered body looking after the medical education in the country. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have contended that by a judgment of a Bench ofthis Court in C. W. No. 1003/90 the elections of the office bearers of the Medical Council which had been held on 6/02/1990 had been set aside and thecourt had ordered holding of fresh elections after updating the electoral rollsand framing the regulations. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have contended that by a judgment of a Bench ofthis Court in C. W. No. 1003/90 the elections of the office bearers of the Medical Council which had been held on 6/02/1990 had been set aside and thecourt had ordered holding of fresh elections after updating the electoral rollsand framing the regulations. It is stated that the Administrator appointed bythe Court did not perform his functions in accordance with law and the judgment as he wrongfully excluded the petitioners and others from taking part inthe elections and at the same time also wrongfully included some other personsfor taking part in the elections when they were not entitled to do so. Thepetitioners, therefore, say that the second and third respondents have beenwrongly elected as President and Vice-President of the Medical Council and theelections should, therefore, be set aside. In fact in whole of the body of thepetition the challenge is mainly to the election of respondents 2 and 3 as President and Vice-President of the Medical Council. ( 5 ) BEFORE we go into the submissions of the parties, we may at thisstage set out in brief, background of the case. ( 6 ) THE three petitioners (petitioners 1, 2 and 3) in the present writpetition along with two others filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court,it being No. 1391/87. It was against the Medical Council as well as four morerespondents one of them being Dr. A. K. N. Sinha, who is respondent No. 2 inthe present writ petition. Dr. Sinha had been elected as President of themedical Council for the years 1985 to 1990. The challenge in that writ petitionwas that respondents therein were not competent to occupy various offices ofthe Medical Council or to exercise powers and privileges vested in the officebearers of the Medical Council. A learned Single Judge by order dated 11november 198 7 held that to be so and declared that respondents 2 to 5 hadceased to be the members of the Medical Council as representing the Patna,bihar, Mithila and Magadh Universities under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) ofsection 3 of the Act. A learned Single Judge by order dated 11november 198 7 held that to be so and declared that respondents 2 to 5 hadceased to be the members of the Medical Council as representing the Patna,bihar, Mithila and Magadh Universities under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) ofsection 3 of the Act. In coming to this conclusion the learned Single Judgeexamined the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Act and observed asunder: "section 7 (1) lays it down that the President or the Vice-Presidentof the Council shall hold office for a term not exceeding five yearsand not extending beyond the expiry of his term as member of thecouncil. Now when respondent No. 2 was elected as the President,he was a member of the Council having been elected from the constituency contemplated by Section 3 (l) (b) of the Act. That constituency has been abolished and the natural effect is that respondentno. 2 s membership of the Council qua the abolished constituencyhas expired. Having come in from a fresh constituency, he cannotcling on to an elective office secured by him when he represented adifferent constituency. This is the combined effect of Sections 3 (l) (b),3 (2), 7 (1) and 7 (2) of the Act. Any other construction would beviolative not only of the language of the enactment, but also of thespirit underlying representative, democracy. ( 7 ) THIS reasoning was upheld by a Bench of this Court in its judgmentdated 21/11/1990 in C. W. P. No. 1003/90. ( 8 ) IN Appeal No. 283 of 1989 arising out of Writ Petition 3375/88,and filed by Dr. S. N. Deshmukh against the Medical Council and two others,a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by order dated 25/04/1989recorded that the Medical Council would constitute a committee for framingrules and regulations governing elections of the various posts of Medical Counciland the committee was to frame regulations in that behalf within four monthsfrom that date, and till then "all such elections shall be by secret ballot andmajority vote. " It is not necessary to reproduce certain other minutes of thatorder except to note that the appellant did not press his appeal and the writpetition and he withdrew all the allegations contained in those proceedings. Inpursuance thereof it is stated that the General Body of the Council approvedthe rules so framed in its meeting, held on 20/12/1989. " It is not necessary to reproduce certain other minutes of thatorder except to note that the appellant did not press his appeal and the writpetition and he withdrew all the allegations contained in those proceedings. Inpursuance thereof it is stated that the General Body of the Council approvedthe rules so framed in its meeting, held on 20/12/1989. ( 9 ) ELECTION to the President, Vice-President and the Executive Committee of the Medical Council were held on 6/02/1990. Dr. A. K. N. Sinhaand Dr. P. Narasimha Rao were respectively elected as President and Vice-President. In the writ petition (No. 1003/90) filed on 26/03/1990 theseelections were challenged. There were four petitioners in that writ petitionand as many as 34 respondents, the last respondent being Union of Indiathrough the Secretary. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and added withthe direction of the Court. Some of the respondents were those who had beenelected to the Executive Committee and some whose very membership of themedical Council was under challenge. There were four petitioners, three ofthem are the same as in the present writ petition, being petitioners 1. 2 and 3and the fourth petitioner there was one Dr. Harcharan Singh. As noted above. that writ petition was decided on 21/11/1990. During the pendency ofthat writ petition, however, the Court with the consent of the parties appointeddr. A. K. Mukherjee, Additional Director General. Health Services, to act asadministrator of the Medical Council till disposal of the writ petition. He wasto perform all day-to-date duties that were required to be performed by Secretary of the Medical Council and was to perform all normal functions of themedical Council. The Court pissed this order as Dr. P. S. Jain, who wassecretary to the Medical Council, had since superannuated. He was directedto hand over the charge to the Administrator. ( 10 ) IN its judgment in that petition the Court noted that the strengthof the Medical Council was 120 members out of which 78 attended on the dateof election. The Court in that judgment observed as under : (A) It rejected the argument of the respondents that every electioneither to the Council or by the Council can be challenged undersection 4 (2) of the Act. (b) Alternative argument of the respondents that the alleged illegalities/irregularities in the elections could not be questioned as theywere saved by Section 3 (3) of the Act, was also rejected. (b) Alternative argument of the respondents that the alleged illegalities/irregularities in the elections could not be questioned as theywere saved by Section 3 (3) of the Act, was also rejected. (c) The Court examined the argument of the respondents that evenassuming that there were some illegalities/irregularities in theelections, they did not materially affect the results inasmuch asthe President had won by margin of 21 votes. Petitioners, however, alleged that the number of members ineligible to vote wasas much as 24 and would, therefore, have materially affected theelections results. Petitioners had also contended that the personsnominating and seconding were also not valid members of themedical Council and so the nomination of the persons electedwas not legal. Dealing with the argument that elections in themedical Council were comparable with the general electionsunder the Representation of People Act respecting the requirement as to whether the elections were materially affected becausesome members illegally participated in the elections, the Courtobserved that the two elections were materially different. Thecourt then dwelled upon the importance of the Medical Council. An important function to perform with the Medical Council wasrecognition of the institutes including its overseeing the medicaleducation in whole of the country. Then the Court held asunder:"in the present elections out of 120 members only 78 members could be present and out of 78 members about 25members were legally not qualified to participate in theelections. These weighty considerations apart from thespecific illegalities in the elections of the President, Vice-President and the members of the Executive Committee,leaves no alternative but to set aside the said elections andto order fresh elections. " (d) The scheme of Section 7 of the Act is that Section 7 (1) providefor the term of the President and the Vice-President; Sections 7 (2) to 7 (6) provide for such things as deemed vacation ofmembership, continuation of membership in the interregnum before a successor is elected or nominated, filling of casual vacancies and nomination/election three months prior to the expiry offive years term. Thus Sub-section (1) and Sub-sections (2) to (6)of Section 7 operate on two entirely different fields, i. e. Presidentand Vice-President on the one hand and general membership onthe other. Sec. 7 (1) prescribes that the maximum term of President or Vice-President shall not exceed five years, but the termcan be even shorter if before five years the term of a member ofthe Council expires, either by fresh election or nomination. Sec. 7 (1) prescribes that the maximum term of President or Vice-President shall not exceed five years, but the termcan be even shorter if before five years the term of a member ofthe Council expires, either by fresh election or nomination. Theobject of this provision is that the members whose term hasexpired as a member of the Council cannot act as the Presidentor the Vice-President of the Council. These two officesare veryimportant offices as they are ex-officio Presidentand Vice-President of the Executive Committee which performs the executive functions of administration and severalother important functions assigned to the Executive Committee by the Act. Dr. P. Narsimha Rao, Vice-President, hasadmittedly ceased to be a member of the medical faculty as earlyas 1972 but had been participating without being a member ofthe Council. He was elected as the Vice-President from 1985-1990 and again for a period of five years from 1990-1995. Tosay that he can continue as a member till has successor is appointed under Section 7 (2) and could, therefore, be elected as a Vice-President is to cause a harm to the language of Section 7 (1), thescheme of Section 7 and to the scheme of election under the Act. Thus, Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 7 providefor entirely different contingencies and Sub-section (2) cannot bepressed in service by a member who has ceased to be a memberfor a long period of 18 years. The provision of continuation ofmembership until the successor is elected or nominated is only astop-gap arrangement for a short duration and not meant for thecontinuation of membership perpetually and on that basis Presidentship or Vice-Presidentship perpetually. Sub-section (6) ofsection 7 gives some indication regarding the stop-gap period asit lays down that three months prior to the expiry of the periodof five years nomination or election of a successor has to beachieved. . . Apart from this Sub-section (2) of Section 7 concernsonly with the membership of a member. The opening words ofthe sub-section make the said provision subject to the otherprovisions of the section. Sub-section (2) is, therefore, controlled by Sub-section (3) which mandatorily lays down that anelected or nominated member shall be deemed to have vacatedhis seat if he ceases to be a member of the medical faculty of theuniversity or ceases to be a person enrolled on the State Medicalregister concerned. Sub-section (2) is, therefore, controlled by Sub-section (3) which mandatorily lays down that anelected or nominated member shall be deemed to have vacatedhis seat if he ceases to be a member of the medical faculty of theuniversity or ceases to be a person enrolled on the State Medicalregister concerned. (e) Finally the Court gave the following directions :"during the course of the arguments we had directed theadministrator appointed by us to be present. He has ininformed the Court that if fresh elections are to be held thesame can be achieved within the period of 100 days. Duringa period of 60 days the process of elections and nominations,envisaged by Section 3, can be completed and the properand correct electoral roll can be prepared. We, therefore,direct the Administrator, who is also the Additional Directorgeneral, to start the process of updating the electoral rollimmediately. In the twin capacity which he enjoys theelections to the post of President, Vice-President, Executivecommittee and the other bodies should be held and theentire process be completed within 100 days. We leaveit to the elected body and the office-bearers either to ratifythe decisions or reverse them, if necessary, taken in themeeting of the Council dated 14. 3. 1990. " ( 11 ) DR. A. K. N. Sinha, it appears, filed a Special Leave Petition (No. 2165 of 1991) against the judgment of this Court in Civil Writ 1003/90, but itfurther appears the Supreme Court did not grant say of the operation of thejudgment. Election process started in terms of the judgment. The Administrator sent letter of 23/11/1990 to all the Universities concerned requiringthem to intimate to the Medical Council whether their existing representativeson the Council continue to be the members of their respective Faculties ofmedicine and further requested them, in the event of seats lying vacant, tocommunicate the names of their representatives. The Administrator also wroteletter dated 22/11/1990 to the Secretaries of the State Governmentsconcerned for intimating the names of their representatives to the Medicalcouncil. A letter of the same date was also addressed to the Central Government again requiring it to intimate the names of the representatives under thecategory of Registered Medical Graduates whose terms had since expired. The Administrator also wroteletter dated 22/11/1990 to the Secretaries of the State Governmentsconcerned for intimating the names of their representatives to the Medicalcouncil. A letter of the same date was also addressed to the Central Government again requiring it to intimate the names of the representatives under thecategory of Registered Medical Graduates whose terms had since expired. Theadministrator also wrote a letter dated 22/11/1990 to the Returningofficer appointed by the Central Government requesting him to hold the elections for seven seats as the term of the previous members had already expiredunder the category falling under Section 3 (l) (d) of the Act. He sent variousreminders as well. Some did not respond to his letters. The Administrator,therefore, approached this Court for suitable directions (C. M. 336/91) as hesaid he had already announced the election programme and elections were tobe held on 4/03/1991. This Court, after hearing Counsel for the Administrator, the petitioners and Dr. B. Ray Choudhury, the fourth respondent,passed the following order on 24/01/1991 : "c. M. 336/91 in C. W. 1003/90pursuant to the directions of this Court the Administrator has announced the election programme and the elections are to be held on 4/03/1991. In this application the Administrator submits that19 Universities have not yet elected their representatives under Section 3 (b) of the Act and some Universities have not yet clarifiedwhether their elections of their representatives are either by Court orsenate. The Administrator should bring to the notice, of the Universities that the provisions of Section 3 are mandatory and if theprovisions are not complied with under Section 7 of the Act theerstwhile members or the nominees would not be able to participatein the elections. It is noted that the Administrator has written about5 letters to each of the University without much response. Thiswould be treated as final letter to them and all the nominations as onthe notified date of 2/03/1991 should form the electoral rollfor the elections to be held on 4/03/1991. Application isallowed. " ( 12 ) THE Administrator wrote letter to the petitioners stating that interms of the judgment dated 21/11/1990 in Writ Petition 1003/90 theywere not valid members of the Medical Council. This was by separate lettersdated 1/02/1991. Application isallowed. " ( 12 ) THE Administrator wrote letter to the petitioners stating that interms of the judgment dated 21/11/1990 in Writ Petition 1003/90 theywere not valid members of the Medical Council. This was by separate lettersdated 1/02/1991. Petitioners were told, however, that in case a freshprocess with regard to election or nomination, as the case may be, was concluded and their names were notified by the Central Government by 2/03/1991,their names would be included in the electoral roll as a member of the Medical ,council and they would be entitled to vote on 4/03/1991 which date hadbeen fixed for holding the elections. Earlier by a communication dated 19/01/1991 the Administrator had informed these petitioners of the meetingof the Medical Council to he held on 4/03/1991. This letter the Administrator. therefore, withdrew. ( 13 ) THE fourth petitioner Dr. K. G. Mittal filed a suit against themedical Council of India before the Civil Judge, Meerut, seeking a declarationthat he was a duly elected member of the Medical Council under Section 3 (l) (d)of the Act and also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendantsfrom holding the meeting fixed for 4/03/1991. By order dated 27/02/1991 Civil Judge, Meerut, stayed the elections which were scheduled to be heldon 4/03/1991. Dr. S. N. Deshmukh and others also filed a writ petition inthe Bombay High Court (Writ Petition No. 686/01) against the Medical Councilof India and others and following are the minutes of the order dated 6/03/1991: "allowed to be withdrawn on application of Mr. Radhakrishnan,counsel for the petitioners, as the dispute about order passed bydelhi High Court is pending before Supreme Court and petitionerscan raise issue of disqualification also before Supreme Court. " ( 14 ) THE Administrator appointed by this Court was in real dilemma. He would not know if to hold the elections in terms of the judgment of thiscourt or to stay his hands in view of the order of the Civil Judge, Meerut. Heappeared to be a much harassed man. He approached this Court for somesolace by filing an application (C. M. 1147/91 ). This application he filed on 5/03/1991 which was adjourned to 19/03/1991 on which date he was toldthat in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 14/03/1991, nofurther orders were necessary on his application. We do not have on ourrecord this order of 14/03/1991. He approached this Court for somesolace by filing an application (C. M. 1147/91 ). This application he filed on 5/03/1991 which was adjourned to 19/03/1991 on which date he was toldthat in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 14/03/1991, nofurther orders were necessary on his application. We do not have on ourrecord this order of 14/03/1991. ( 15 ) THE first respondent in its return in the present writ petition hassaid that this Court did not pass any order on the application of the Administrator (C. M. 1147/91) as according to the Court the challenge to its judgmentwas pending in the Supreme Court and that City Civil Judge, Meerut, was notunder the supervisory jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The Administrator,on advice, filed transfer petitions to the Supreme Court of India against the suitpending before the Civil Judge, Meerut, as well as writ petition pending in thebombay High Court. In view of the mandamus of this Court in C. W. 1003/90,the Administrator did hold the elections on 4/03/1991 and in deference tothe order of the City Civil Judge, Meerut, the results of the elections were notdeclared. ( 16 ) IN the meanwhile, on 7/02/1991, the petitioners againapproached this Court in C. W. 1003/90 (C. M. 665/91) praying that theadministrator be directed to remove all ineligible members from the electoralroll and he also directed to fill up all the vacancies under the provisions ofsections 3 (l) (c), (b) and (d) of the Act and direction was also sought that theconcernedauthorities be required to hold the elections of Registered Medicalpractitioners in their respective States and only those nominated members bepermitted to participate in the elections. This application was, however, dismissed as withdrawn as it was not supported by a proper affidavit. Another application (C. M. 901/91) was, therefore, filed. This application was, however, dismissed as withdrawn on 19/02/1991 with liberty tothe petitioners/applicants to take appropriate steps. ( 17 ) THE Supreme Court gave its order on I August 1991. The Specialleave Petition filed by Dr. A. K. N. Sinha had been held to have become infructuous inasmuch as elections had been held. This was dismissed as infructuous. But the contentions raised were kept open. ( 17 ) THE Supreme Court gave its order on I August 1991. The Specialleave Petition filed by Dr. A. K. N. Sinha had been held to have become infructuous inasmuch as elections had been held. This was dismissed as infructuous. But the contentions raised were kept open. The civil suit filed by thefourth petitioner in the City Civil Court, Meerut, was allowed to be dismissedas withdrawn though the Court observed that the suit was not maintainable andthe Civil Judge had even issued notice of contempt of Court against theadministrator and all others who participated in the elections for having heldthe elections on 4/03/1991 in spite of the stay granted by him. Thesupreme Court discharged the contempt notices as well. The transfer petitionfor transfer of the writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court wasalso held to have become infructuous inasmuch as the writ petition in thebombay High Court had since been dismissed as withdrawn. The Supremecourt directed the Administrator to declare the results of the elections forthwith. Results of the elections so declared were brought to the notice of thiscourt in C. W. 1003/90 by the Administrator by filing an application (C. M. 4181/91) on 7/08/1991. He also sought his discharge. The Court observed that since the elections had already been held, the function of the Administrator was over and the Administrator had handed over the charge to theexecutive Council. He was, therefore, discharged. ( 18 ) NOT satisfied with the election results, the petitioners have filed thepresent writ petition on 23/09/1991. The contentions raised are that (1) before holding elections the Administrator did not prepare a valid electoralroll in terms of the Act and the judgment in C. W. 1003/90; (2) four of membersof the Medical Council who took part in the elections were wrongly included inthe electoral roll and 16 members were similarly wrongfully excluded; (3) it wasimmaterial if the President and the Vice-President were elected unanimously by51 members present and voting in the meeting as the question if the inclusionor exclusion of the members materially affected the election was not relevant inview of the judgment of this Court in C. W. 1003/90; and lastly, (4) the Administrator acted in partisan manner. ( 19 ) ALL these contentions were countered by the respondents. ( 19 ) ALL these contentions were countered by the respondents. Theysaid the Administrator followed the decision of this Court in C. W. 1003/90 inletter and spirit and took all possible steps to hold the elections within thestipulated period against all odds. They said the petition was malafide andfiled by some of the disgruntled erstwhile members of the Medical Council toput obstacles in the smooth working of the Medical Council. They said evenassuming that there was error on the part of the Administrator including orexcluding certain members, that would not be quite material to judge thevalidity of the elections and they also relied on the earlier decision of thiscourt. ( 20 ) WE have set out the relevant provisions of the Act. To us thelanguage appears to he quite explicit. Still disputes have been raised on thecorrect interpretation of Section 7 read with Section 3 of the Act. In the earlierjudgment in C. W. 1003/90 this Court observed with reference to Section 7 ofthe Act that the President and Vice-President of the Medical Council thoughelected tor a term of five years would cease to hold those posts if they cease tobe the members of the Medical Council. It was held that if it could be saidthat President or Vice-President could hold that office as he would continue tobe the member till his successor was appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section7 would he to cause harm to the language of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 andthe scheme of the section itself. The Court also observed that Sub-section (2)of Section 7 could not be availed of by a member if he ceases to be a memberfor a long period and if in the meanwhile his successor had not been elected ornominated. The Court observed that the provision of continuation of membership until the successor was elected or nominated was only a stop-gap arrangement for a short duration and not meant for the continuation of the member-ship perpetually and on that basis holding office of the President or Vice-President perpetually. In coming to this conclusion strength was drawn fromsub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act which deals with the starting of processof holding election or nomination of a member when the term of the existingmember is to expire. We ourselves felt a little difficulty in appreciating thisline of reasoning in the earlier case. In coming to this conclusion strength was drawn fromsub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act which deals with the starting of processof holding election or nomination of a member when the term of the existingmember is to expire. We ourselves felt a little difficulty in appreciating thisline of reasoning in the earlier case. We would have thought that under Subsection (2) of Section 7 a member would have continued for a term of five yearsfrom the date of his nomination or election or until his successor shall havebeen duly nominated or elected, whichever is longer, and Sub-section (6) doesnot appear to control Sub-section (2), but a member who holds office for a termof five years or continues to be so till his successor is appointed or nominatedwould lose his membership altogether if he ceases to fulfil the basic conditionsas set out in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Nevertheless, the view which the earlier Bench took is not something which isnot possible and in this petition we will rather follow the same, rather to workhard again on the interpretation of various sub-sections of section 7 the language of which appears to be quite candid. To us it appears that Sub-sections (2) and (3) operate in different fields and Sub-section (2) would apply to all theclauses of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 as mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act. We will confine ourselves in the present writ petition to seeif the Administrator had complied with the directions in the judgment and theinterpretation of law as given therein and also if his actions are within theprovisions of the Act for the purpose of holding elections which job was enjoined upon him. In the earlier case the Court did not want to draw a comparisonbetween the elections under the Act and those held under the Representation ofpeople Act and said two were materially different. But the Court then proceeded to note that out of 120 members only 78 members could be present, andout of those present about 25 members were not the legal members of themedical Council. The Court observed that these were weighty considerationsapart from the other illegalities. In these circumstances, the Court directedfresh elections. That is not a situation now existing in the present petition before us. The Court observed that these were weighty considerationsapart from the other illegalities. In these circumstances, the Court directedfresh elections. That is not a situation now existing in the present petition before us. We may now at this stage examine if some members were wronglyincluded or excluded from taking part in the elections. ( 21 ) PETITIONERS say that (1) Dr. Bhaskar Ray Choudhury, (2) Dr. R. S. Thind, (3)Dr. A. M. Krishna Urs, and (4) Dr. R. K. Srivastava, have beenwrongly included by the Administrator as members of the Medical Council. Out of these, Dr. Thind and Dr. Srivastava did not participate even in theelections. Contention of the petitioners is that all these four persons ceased tothe members of their respective Medical Faculties of the Universities and they,therefore, ceased to be the members of the Medical Council. Except for statingthat Dr. Ray Choudhury and Dr. Thind were declared ineligible to be the members by the earlier judgment of this Court, there are no other particulars. Respondents have placed on record a copy of the telegram received from thepunjabi University, Patiala, wherein it was mentioned that Dr. Thind still continued to be the member of the Faculty of Medicine of the University. In theendorsement confirming the telegram it was stated that Dr. Thind was memberof Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot, and continued as a representative of the Punjabi University in Medical Council of India and also as a member of the Faculty of Medicine of the Punjabi University. Calcutta Universityalso certified that Dr. B. Ray Choudhury was the representative of the University of Calcutta to the Medical Council of India and was continuing as a member of the Medical Faculty of the University and would continue to be so beyond 4/03/1991 as well. A telegram had alsobeen received from thepoona University that Dr. R. K. Srivastava was still a member of the Medicalfaculty of that University. A similar intimation had been received from theuniversity of Mysore that Dr. A. M. Krishna Urs was continuing to be a member of the Faculty of Medicine of that University. We do not think anythingfurther was required of the Administrator to go into the question that eventhough these four doctors continued to be on the Medical Faculties of theirrespective Universities, the Administrator was still to find out if they had beenduly elected as per rules. We do not think anythingfurther was required of the Administrator to go into the question that eventhough these four doctors continued to be on the Medical Faculties of theirrespective Universities, the Administrator was still to find out if they had beenduly elected as per rules. ( 22 ) THE petitioners say that out of 16 members which had beenwrongly excluded, there was serious contest with regard to 13 members only. Itwas said that 7 members falling under the category under Section 3 (l) (d) didnot earn any disqualification as applicable to their group under Sub-section (3)of Section 7 of the Act and would continue to be the members under Subsection (2) of that Section 3 persons were elected under the group under Section3 (1) (c) and again they had not earned any disqualification under Section 7 (3)and continued to be the members under Section 7 (2) of the Act. Petitionerssaid that the Court had already held in the earlier writ petition that election ofdr. P. Narsimha Rao to the post of Vice-President was vitiated and he couldnot continue to be the Vice-President of the Medical Council. Then it was saidthat two members who were duly nominated under Section 3 (l) (a) had alsobeen wrongfully excluded by the Administrator and that Section 7 (3) did notprovide any bar to the members nominated under Section 3 (l) (a) of the Act. Lastly, it was said that Dr. H. B. Rajshekhar was also wrongfully excluded ashe continued to member of the Medical Faculty of Karnataka Universty andhad been duly elected by a Senate or a Court of the University. We do notthink the petitioners are right in their submissions. The earlier judgment onwhich the petitioners heavily rely had clearly held that the provision of continuation of membership until the successor was elected or nominated was only astop-gap arrangement for a short duration and was not meant for continuationof the membership perpetually. In this view of the matter, no fault can befound with the Administrator in excluding all these 16 members whose membership had ceased much earlier. No advantage can also be drawn from the factthat earlier the Administrator addressed letters to them on the surmise that theywere members but these were certainly withdrawn in view of the interpretationgiven by this Court to Section 7 of the Act. ( 22 ) NOW the case of Dr. No advantage can also be drawn from the factthat earlier the Administrator addressed letters to them on the surmise that theywere members but these were certainly withdrawn in view of the interpretationgiven by this Court to Section 7 of the Act. ( 22 ) NOW the case of Dr. P. Narsimha Rao, who had been electedvice-President and though excluded by the Administrator, is on a differentfooting. It will be seen that the Administrator had addressed letters dated 1/02/1991 to all the members who were sought to be excluded in which itwas mentioned that in case a fresh process with regard to election or nomination, as the case may be, was concluded and the names were notified by thecentral Government by 2/03/1991, their names will be included in theelectoral roll as a member to the Medical Council and he will be entitled to voteon 4/03/1991. The State of Andhra nominated Dr. P. Narsimha Raounder Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act in place of Dr. C. S. Bhaskaran who was theearlier nominee of the State of Andhra under this group. Dr. Rao s name was,therefore, rightly included in the electoral roll. Moreover, Dr. C. S. Bhaskaran,whose name had been excluded in the list of 16 members, was a nominee undersection 3 (1) (a) and he had as a matter of fact resigned and in his place Dr. Raohad been nominated. ( 24 ) PETITIONERS then said that out of total strength of 120 members,notices were not sent or withdrawn illegally to 16 members and 4 members wereillegally included in the election and 51 only participated. They said theadministrator did not take any steps to fill up the vacancies in the case ofmembers falling in the group under Sections 3 (l) (c) and 3 (l) (d) and largenumber of vacancies were in the class of university group under Section 3 (l) (d ). We do think petitioners could say all this in view of the fact, as the recordwould show, that the Administrator made all possible efforts to prepare theelectoral roll in terms of Section 3 of the Act, and he held the elections aftertaking directions from the Court in the earlier writ petition. Elections of thepresident and Vice-President have been unanimous and so also all of the members of the Evecutive Committee except two members. Elections of thepresident and Vice-President have been unanimous and so also all of the members of the Evecutive Committee except two members. This fact is quite relevant for our purpose if four members allegedly wrongfully included and sixteenmembers allegedly wrongfully excluded would have made the results of theelections otherwise. ( 25 ) THE Administrator, we find, has acted in a forthright manner andwe commend his efforts in holding the elections in terms of the Court s orderagainst many odds. The challenge of the petitioners to the elections results must, therefore,fail. ( 26 ) THIS is third time that elections of Dr. A. K. . N. Sinha as Presidentand Dr. P. Narsimha Rao as Vice-President are sought to be set aside by thepetitioners though they were successful in earlier two petitions, one in Bombayhigh Court and the other in this Court. We feel the petitioners should nothave filed this writ petition since the elections had been held by the Administrator appointed by the Court and under the orders of the Court after takingnecessary directions for holding the same. After the Administrator excludedthe names of the petitioners as valid members, first three petitioners filed a writpetition in the Bombay High Court and the fourth petitioner before the Civiljudge, Meerut. A brief history of the litigation has already been set out above. Since obstacles were sought to be put in the smooth functioning of the Administrtor for the purpose of holding elections and first he received notice from thebombay High Court and then a restraint order from the Meerut Court, andafter the election results had been declared under orders of the Supreme Court,the Supreme Court directed that any person aggrieved by the elections was atliberty to approach Delhi High Court and no other Court in India would havejurisdiction to entertain any suit or petition relating to the elections of themedical Council. The petitioners have approached Delhi High Court but wefind their grievance is quite misplaced. We may also note that in spite ofadverse orders made by the Supreme Court against the Meerut Court, the petitioners have nevertheless said in their affidavit that the Court at Meeruthad rightly passed the order of injunction. ( 27 ) DURING the course of arguments we found a person instructing thelearned Counsel for the petitioners and we thought he was one of the petitioners, but on enquiry we were told that he was Dr. ( 27 ) DURING the course of arguments we found a person instructing thelearned Counsel for the petitioners and we thought he was one of the petitioners, but on enquiry we were told that he was Dr. P. S. Jain, who was earlierthe Secretary of the Medical Council and in whose place the Administrator hadbeen appointed and the Court in the earlier writ petition directed that he wouldnot act as a Secretary or in any other capacity in regard to the Medical Councilthough the latter part of the order was modified on a subsequent date. Wealso find that in the order of Meerut Court it is mentioned that Dr. P. S. Jainassisted Counsel for the plaintiff (petitioner No. 4 ). This led the Counsel forthe respondents to remark that Dr. P. S. . Jain was behind the present litigationand that the petition was malafide as Dr. Jam though having superannuatedfrom the post of Secretary of the Medical Council was still intermeddling withits affairs and had to be removed and injuncted under Court s orders. We donot say anything on this as there is nothing on the record. ( 28 ) THIS petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 4,500. 00. Rule is discharged,