Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 701 (UTT)

Ramakant v. Government of Uttarakhand

2016-10-04

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. All the respondents are represented here through their counsels. All the respondents shall file counter affidavit within two weeks, as prayed. 2. List this case on 18.10.2016 in the daily cause list. 3. Elections of representative from Uttarakhand to the Central Body i.e. CCIM are presently underway. The last date of receiving the postal ballots is 05.10.2016 and the date of scrutiny and counting of the votes is 07.10.2016. 4. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court while disposing of the special appeal had given a finding that the registration of Dr. Ved Prakash Tyagi shall continue till a fresh decision for registration is taken in his case, which shall be done within four weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of the judgment and order dated 12.07.2016. 5. The case of the petitioner (Dr. Ramakant) is that this fresh registration was never granted to Dr. Ved Prakash Tyagi subsequent to the order of this Court. 6. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel for Dr. Ved Prakash Tyagi, on the other hand, contends that in special appeal the challenge was to the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2015, in which the writ petition of the petitioner Dr. Ved Prakash Tyagi was allowed and it was directed that fresh registration be given in his case and it was consequent to the order of the learned Single Judge that a registration was granted to Dr. Ved Prakash Tyagi in December, 2015 itself. Therefore, now there is no question of fresh registration. 7. This fact, however, was never brought before this Court in the earlier round of litigation from the side of Dr. Tyagi, or from the other side. Therefore, the contention of the present petitioner that the possibility that this important fact was deliberately withheld from this Court cannot be ruled out. It is in any case clear that had this fact been brought to the notice of this Court, there would have been no occasion for this Court to observe in its order dated 12.07.2015 as follows: “We also hold that reducing the validity period of Dr. Tyagi’s registration from 10.03.2016 to 11.10.2011 by the Uttarakhand Board without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is absolutely unjustified and whatever hearing was given to Dr. Tyagi’s registration from 10.03.2016 to 11.10.2011 by the Uttarakhand Board without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is absolutely unjustified and whatever hearing was given to Dr. Tyagi was post decisional, given only by the appellate authority and consequently its validity shall remain the same as it was earlier i.e. till 10.03.2016. He shall be deemed to be continuing on the register of the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttarakhand till the Uttarakhand Board takes a fresh decision on the renewal of his registration. The renewal of his registration shall be done keeping in mind the finding of this Court as early as possible but definitely within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the registration authority.” 8. Since, the present elections are already on, no interference is liable to be made in the ongoing election process, however, it is directed that though the elections shall go on but the result shall not be declared till the next date of listing. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be issued within twenty four hours on payment of usual charges.