Judgment : 1. Subject matter of these two writ petitions relates to the post of President to Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council (in short, the Council) and action of the Government in appointing Project Director, A.P.State Aids Control Society, Hyderabad to take charge of affairs of the Council. The petitioners in both the writ petitions claim to have been duly elected as President of the Council respectively. It is contention of the petitioner in W.P. No.1726 of 2011 that he was elected as President of the Council in the elections conducted on 12.10.2009. It is contention of the petitioner in W.P. No.27438 of 2011 that he was elected as President of the Council in the meeting held on 31.03.2011. Writ Petition No.1726 of 2011 was filed on 31.01.2011 seeking mandamus declaring the special meeting notice dated 28.01.2011 to conduct elections of President and Vice President on 31.01.2011 at 2.00 P.M as arbitrary, illegal etc., and consequently for direction to the respondents therein not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful functioning as President of the Council. Writ Petition No.27438 of 2011 is filed on 29.09.2011 seeking mandamus declaring action of the 1st respondent/Government in directing the 2nd respondent/Project Director, A.P. State Aids Control Society to take charge of affairs of the Council as illegal, arbitrary etc., and to drop all further proceedings. 2. At the outset it may be seen that much water had flown under the bridge after filing of Writ Petition No.1726 of 2011 in this Court. It is contention of the Government in the counter that the petitioner viz., M.Venkata Reddy resigned from the post of President of the Council by tendering resignation letter on 28.03.2011. Subsequently the petitioner in W.P. No.27438 of 2011 viz., Annapareddy Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy claims to have been elected as President of the Council in the elections held on 31.03.2011. Thereafter on 26.09.2011 the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Hyderabad addressed letter to the Project Director, A.P. State Aids Control Society, Hyderabad to be in-charge of the Council duly giving cheque power (i.e., counter signing) along with the Registrar of the council with immediate effect. Thereafter on 26.09.2011 the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Hyderabad addressed letter to the Project Director, A.P. State Aids Control Society, Hyderabad to be in-charge of the Council duly giving cheque power (i.e., counter signing) along with the Registrar of the council with immediate effect. Inspite of it, the petitioner/M.Venkata Reddy did not question election dated 31.03.2011 said to have been conducted for the post of president of the Council in which the other petitioner Annapareddy Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy claims to have been elected as President; and also did not question the letter dated 26.09.2011 of the Government appointing Project Director, A.P. State Aids Control Society as in-charge of A.P. Pharmacy Council with cheque power, by making necessary amendments to the prayer in W.P. No.1726 of 2011 and by impleading further parties to that writ petition. Instead, W.P.M.P.no.5777 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.1726 of 2011 for amendment of prayer in the writ petition by including additional prayer that elected body of the council was not abolished and to permit the petitioner to continue as President of the council. Now, it is sought to be contended by the petitioner’s counsel in W.P. No.1726 of 2011 as well as Additional Advocate General who appeared for the Government that the petitioner/M.Venkata Reddy gave another letter disputing his signature in the resignation letter dated 28.03.2011 and that there is dispute about resignation of the petitioner as President of the Council. The said submission made by the Additional Advocate General during the course of arguments is contrary to the stand of the Government in the counter affidavit filed in that writ petition. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner/M.Venkata Reddy addressed any letter disputing his resignation letter dated 28.03.2011; and the Government did not file copy of the said letter in this Court along with any sworn affidavit/counter affidavit. The petitioner filed copy of the said letter dated 20.07.2011 addressed by him to the Government stating that he had not tendered any resignation to the membership of the Council and that in case any forged resignation letter on his name was received, it may be ignored. Copy of the said letter is filed along with W.P.M.P. No.5777 of 2012 by the petitioner on 21.02.2012. Copy of the said letter is filed along with W.P.M.P. No.5777 of 2012 by the petitioner on 21.02.2012. In the affidavit filed in support of W.P.M.P No.5777 of 2012, the petitioner contends that he did not resign for the post of member and President of the Council and that letters produced are forged and fabricated for the purpose of this litigation. If the said letter, dated 20.07.2011, addressed by the petitioner was with the Government, the Government would not have failed to disclose the same in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent on 27.08.2011. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent though does not contain date of swearing of the said counter affidavit, contains verification statement, dated 18.08.2011. It is contended that the letter, dated 20.07.2011, of the petitioner was ante-dated and was inserted in the record subsequently. The Government/1st respondent did not choose to file any additional counter affidavit disclosing receipt of the said letter, dated 20.07.2011, and date of receipt of the same. At any rate, resignation of the petitioner/Venkat Reddy for the post of President as well as Membership of the Council becomes a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into and decided in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since he did not question the subsequent election to the post of President on 31.03.2011 and also appointing person in-charge of the Council on 26.09.2011, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in W.P.No.1726 of 2011, as it has become infructuous. Also, the petitioner is not entitled for the proposed amendment sought in WPMP.No.5777 of 2012 in that writ petition. 3. Insofar as the petitioner/Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy in W.P.No.27438 of 2011 is concerned, apart from claiming himself as duly elected President to the Council in the elections held on 31.03.2011, questions the Governmental action in directing the 2nd respondent/Project Director, A.P. State Aids Control Society, to take charge of affairs of the Council on the ground that the said direction dislodges duly elected body of the Council without giving any notice. The impugned letter, dated 26.09.2011, of the 1st respondent gives brief immediate past history of the events, which culminated into appointment of the 2nd respondent as in-charge of the Council. The impugned letter, dated 26.09.2011, of the 1st respondent gives brief immediate past history of the events, which culminated into appointment of the 2nd respondent as in-charge of the Council. On 02.12.2009, by G.O.Rt.No.1547, one R.V. Chandravadan, who was the then Project Director, A.P. State Aids Control Society, was appointed as Returning Officer to conduct elections to the Council under Section 19(a) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (in short, “the Act”) and he was given cheque power to run the day-to-day administration, as there was no President to the Council. After conducting elections under Section 19(a) of the Act, election of 6 members to the Council was notified by G.O.Ms.No.8, dated 10.01.2011. By Memo No.17716/L.2/2010, dated 28.01.2011, R.V.Chandravadan/Project Director was appointed to convene the Council and to conduct elections of President and Vice-President as per powers laid down under Rule 140 of the A.P. Pharmacy Council Rules, 1955 (in short, “the Rules”). Thereupon, M. Venkat Reddy filed W.P.No.1726 of 2011 in this Court and obtained interim stay of election to the President of the Council proposed to be held pursuant to the special meeting notice, dated 28.01.2011, convening of Council meeting to conduct election of President and Vice-President on 31.01.2011 or on any date thereafter, pending disposal of the said writ petition. This Court passed the said interim stay order on 31.01.2011. While so, on the same day i.e., on 31.03.2011, the Government also passed suo motu stay of the elections to the post of President of the Council. In view of the said stay orders granted by this Court as well as by the Government, the proposed election for President of the Council did not take place on 31.01.2011. 4. After transfer of R.V. Chandravadan from the post of Project Director, A.P. State Aids Control Society, C.Parthasarathy was posted as Project Director, A.P. State Aids Control Society. By the impugned letter, dated 26.09.2011, the Government appointed C. Parthasarathy, Project Director, A.P. State Aids Control Society, as in-charge of the Council duly giving cheque power along with the Registrar of the Council. It is contended by the Additional Advocate General that the impugned letter substitutes another officer in the place of transferred officer and that the Government did nothing more thereunder. It is contended by the Additional Advocate General that the impugned letter substitutes another officer in the place of transferred officer and that the Government did nothing more thereunder. But, the Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy contends that by the impugned letter, the Government wanted to substitute the 2nd respondent as person in-charge of the Council in the place of elected President, who is the petitioner. The impugned letter, dated 26.09.2011, did not say so explicitly. But, the said letter contains a reference to the alleged election of the petitioner/Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy as President. In the letter it is stated that inspite of the Government stayed process of election, it came to the notice of the Government that elections to the post of President and Vice-President of the Council were conducted without notice to the Government and A.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy was elected as President of the Council, which is highly irregular. In that letter, the 1st respondent requested the 2nd respondent to conduct thorough enquiry and submit report to the Government for taking appropriate action against such committee as per the Act and the Rules. The Government also enclosed petitions/complaints received in this regard to the 2nd respondent for finalizing the enquiry in this regard. 5. It is contended by the Senior counsel for the petitioner/Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy that no notice to the Government is necessary for conducting elections to the post of President of the Council and that neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate giving of any notice to the Government before conducting the elections. On the other hand, it is contended by the Additional Advocate General as well the 3rd respondent’s counsel that the so-called election of the petitioner as President of the Council is illegal and contrary to Rules. On 31.01.2011, this Court as well as the Government passed two separate stay orders staying conducting of elections to the post of President of Council. There is no dispute that by 31.03.2011, when the petitioner claims to have been elected as President of the Council, both the above stay orders were in force. In violation of the said stay orders, election could not have been conducted on 31.03.2011. According to the respondents, a show of meeting and a show of election were held on 31.03.2011 contrary to the Rules also. In violation of the said stay orders, election could not have been conducted on 31.03.2011. According to the respondents, a show of meeting and a show of election were held on 31.03.2011 contrary to the Rules also. It is pointed out that under Rule 21 of the Rules, 15 days’ minimum notice is required for calling special meeting of the Council. When previous President M.Venkat Reddy is stated to have submitted his resignation to the post of President on 28.03.2011, it is contended that special meeting for conducting of election to the post of President could not have been validly convened on 31.03.2011. It is contended for the petitioner that requirement of 15 days’ notice for calling a special meeting of the Council can be relaxed in appropriate cases as per Rules. It is further contended for the petitioner that the 1st respondent has no power or jurisdiction under the Act to appoint person in-charge to the Council. The 1st respondent justifies the action under Section 24 of the Act. 6. Section 24 of the Act reads as follows: “24. Mode of elections – Elections under this Chapter shall be conducted in the prescribed manner, and where any dispute arises regarding any such election, it shall be referred to the State Government whose decision shall be final.” Latter part of Section 24 comes into play only when a dispute arises regarding the election and in case the said dispute is referred to the State Government. Previously the Government interfered in the elections and passed stay order on 31.01.2011 because M.Venkat Reddy claimed himself to be President of the Council. When stay order, dated 31.01.2011, passed by the Government and another stay order, dated 31.01.2011, passed by this Court were in force, there could not have been any conduct of election for President of the Council on 31.03.2011. Interim stay, dated 31.01.2011, of this Court pertains to election of President of the Council proposed to be held pursuant to the special meeting notice, dated 28.01.2011, convening of Council meeting to conduct election on 31.01.2011, but also “on any date thereafter”. When both the said stay orders were in force, elections for President of the Council could not have been validly and legally undertaken on 31.03.2011. 7. When both the said stay orders were in force, elections for President of the Council could not have been validly and legally undertaken on 31.03.2011. 7. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that this Court already considered the allegation of flouting interim stay order, dated 31.01.2011, passed in WPMP.No.2116 of 2011 in W.P.No.1726 of 2011 and held that there was no contempt committed. M. Venkat Reddy filed C.C.No.839 of 2011 alleging that interim stay order, dated 31.01.2011, passed in WPMP.No.2116 of 2011 in W.P.No.1726 of 2011 was violated. The said contempt case was filed by M. Venkat Reddy on the ground that the respondents therein did not allow him to work as President though his tenure of office existed. There was no allegation in the contempt case by M. Venkat Reddy that conducting of elections for President of the Council on 31.03.2011 was in violation of interim stay order, dated 31.01.2011, passed in WPMP.No.2116 of 2011. There is no finding given in order, dated 19.09.2011, passed in C.C.No.839 of 2011 with regard to conducting of elections to President of the Council in violation of interim stay order passed in WPMP.No.2116 of 2011. Ultimately, this Court dismissed contempt case on the ground that the allegations made by M.Venkat Reddy therein do not amount to violation of interim stay order, dated 31.01.2011. 8. It is contended by the 3rd respondent’s counsel that assuming that there is no specific provision empowering the Government to appoint person in-charge for the Council, the relief prayed for in this writ petition would lead to installation of the petitioner/Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy as President whose election is in violation of stay orders granted by this Court as well as the Government and that granting of relief in this writ petition would lead to restoration of an illegal election conducted in favour of the petitioner. He placed reliance on Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of A.P. AIR 1966 SC 828 of the Supreme Court in this regard, wherein the Supreme Court observed: “Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated March 7, 1962, and that dated April 18, 1963, were not legally passed: the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, and the latter, because the Government had no power under S.72 of the Act to review an order made under S.62 of the Act and also because it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudem village. In those circumstances, was it a case for the high Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated April 18, 1963? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order-it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case.” 9. The 3rd respondent’s counsel also placed reliance on Chandra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 6 SCC 545 , wherein the Supreme Court observed: “43. Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy. (See Champalal Binani v. CIT ( (1971) 3 SCC 20 ). The High Court and consequently this Court while exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given cases, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant.” 10. In the light of the above discussion of factual matrix of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner/Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy is also not entitled for discretionary extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.