JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated 09.03.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 declaring the election for the posts of President/Vice President, Central Council of Indian Medicine (in short CCIM) on the ground that the constitution of the Central Council is not complete. Further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction upon the respondent No.4 to issue notification consequent upon declaration of result of the election which has been done on 01.11.2017 in terms with Rule 21 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rule, 1975 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule, 1975’]. 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the petitioner No.1 was elected as a member of CCIM from Vinoba Bhave University under Section 3(1)(b) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1970’] on 05.07.2011 for a period of five years. Subsequently, he was elected as the Vice President (Ayurveda), CCIM on 22.03.2014 for a term of 5 years as provided under Section 7(1) read with Section 3(2) of the Act, 1970 and Regulation of the CCIM (Election of President and Vice President) Regulation, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation, 1971’]. The Ministry of AYUSH, through the Director AYUSH communicated vide letter dated 04.05.2016 that the term of the petitioner No.1 was going to be over on 04.07.2016 in view of the fact that he was earlier elected in the election held on 05.07.2011 under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1970. The petitioner No.1 filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 2943 of 2016 with a prayer for counting of his tenure with effect from the publication of Gazette Notification dated 20.06.2012. However, the same was dismissed vide the judgment dated 20.01.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 filed Civil Review No. 59 of 2017 which was allowed on 18.07.2017 and he was permitted to continue as the member of the CCIM till his successor gets elected and thus the petitioner No.1 continued as a member of the CCIM. However, he resigned from the post vide letter dated 16.10.2017 sent to the President, CCIM, New Delhi and also intimated the same to the Government of India. However, he resigned from the post vide letter dated 16.10.2017 sent to the President, CCIM, New Delhi and also intimated the same to the Government of India. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 filed nomination papers for the post of the member (Ayurveda Faculty) of the CCIM under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1970 and he was elected unopposed on 01.11.2017. The petitioner No.2 was also declared elected as member of faculty on 28.12.2017 by the returning officer for Unani System of medicine. Even after declaration of the result, the respondent No.1 did not notify the same in the Gazette, as has been prescribed under the provision of Rule 21 of the Rules, 1975. The petitioner filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2986 of 2017. However, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition, if the Central Government does not issue the notification under the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules, 1975. 3. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that Regulation 64 of the Central Council of Indian Medicine (General) Regulations, 1976 provides that if the effective date of resignation is mentioned in the resignation letter itself, the acceptance of the same is not required. The inaction on the part of the respondent No.4 has resulted in transgression upon the fundamental and statutory rights of the petitioner. The distinction between Sections 7(1) and 7(3) of the Act, 1970 has been decided by the Delhi High Court in L.P.A No. 167 of 2018 wherein it has been held that the tenure of the President, Vice President or a member of the Central Council shall always be for five years whereas Section 7(3) is applied for ‘casual vacancy’ which is filled by the new incumbent for the rest of the term. However, that would not apply in the case of the President/Vice-President. The tenure of a member under Section 7 of the Act, 1970 is to be counted from the date of election in terms of Section 7(1) of the Act, 1970. However, the respondent No.1 arbitrarily kept the publication of the Gazette Notification pending. The petitioner No.1 requested the respondents to allow him to participate in the election, but he did not get any response. 4. However, the respondent No.1 arbitrarily kept the publication of the Gazette Notification pending. The petitioner No.1 requested the respondents to allow him to participate in the election, but he did not get any response. 4. The learned ASGI appearing for the respondent-Union of India submits that prior to the present election of the petitioners under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act, 1970, the petitioner No.1 was elected as a member of the CCIM under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1970 from the faculty of Vinoba Bhave University vide notification dated 02.08.2011 and subsequently the petitioner No.1 got involved in various litigations so as to continue as the member of the CCIM beyond five years and as such when the representation of the petitioner No.1 for issuance of the notification was received, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of AYUSH (CCIM Election Cell) vide letter dated 26.02.2018, sought clarification from the CCIM as to whether he has submitted his resignation to the CCIM and if so, on which date it has been accepted by the CCIM. The CCIM vide letter dated 06.03.2018, informed that the resignation letter of the petitioner dated 16.10.2017 has already been forwarded to the Ministry of Ayush for necessary action. Again vide letters dated 22.03.2018 and 17.04.2018, the CCIM inquired so as to confirm whether the resignation letter of the petitioner No.1 dated 16.10.2017 has been accepted and from which date it would be effective. However, till date the matter is pending for appropriate reply from the CCIM. The election of the President and the Vice President was challenged before the Delhi High Court, however, the same was dismissed and thus the election was conducted on 23.03.2018. The result of the President of the CCIM has not been declared in view of the order passed by the Uttrakhand High Court in Writ Petition No. 398 of 2018. However, Dr. B. R. Ramkrishna, the elected Vice President in the election dated 23.03.2018, has taken over the charge of the President. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have primarily made two fold prayers before this Court. However, Dr. B. R. Ramkrishna, the elected Vice President in the election dated 23.03.2018, has taken over the charge of the President. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have primarily made two fold prayers before this Court. One is for issuance of a direction upon the respondent No.4 to issue consequential notification in terms with rule 21 of the Rule, 1975, as they have been elected in the election held on 01.11.2017 under Section 3(1)(a) of the Regulation 1971. Another prayer is to quash the notification published by the respondent No.2 for holding the election for the post of the President and the Vice President. 6. So far as the first prayer is concerned, the thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Gazette publication of the election result already declared by the Election Officer cannot be kept pending arbitrarily, as the term of the petitioner will be counted from the date of the publication of the result. On the contrary, the stand of the learned ASGI appearing for the respondents is that since earlier, the petitioner No.1 was the member of the CCIM under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act, 1970 and continued as the member by virtue of the order of the Court, it was found necessary to sought clarification regarding acceptance of his resignation by the CCIM. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for respondents puts reliance on the Regulation 64 of the Central Council of Indian Regulation (General) Regulations, 1976. 7. To appreciate the contentions of the parties, I have gone through Regulation 64 which provides as under:- “64. A member desiring to resign his seat in the Central Council shall send his resignation in writing to the President and every such resignation shall take effect from the date is mentioned by him in this behalf or in case no such date is mentioned, from the date of receipt of his letter by the President after confirmation from the member concerned about his resignation.” 8. The aforesaid provision explicitly provides that every resignation sent by a member shall be effective from the date mentioned by him. The aforesaid provision explicitly provides that every resignation sent by a member shall be effective from the date mentioned by him. However, if no such date is mentioned in the application, then it shall be effective from the date of receipt of the letter by the President after confirmation from the member to that effect. In the present case, Annexure-2 is the letter of resignation dated 16.10.2017 issued by the petitioner No.1 to the President, Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi wherein the effective date of resignation was specifically mentioned as 16.10.2017. The receipt of the letter dated 16.10.2017 issued by the petitioner No.1 is not in dispute. Under such circumstance, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no need of seeking further clarification from the CCIM. 9. So far as the relief sought by the petitioners for quashing the notification dated 09.03.2018 is concerned, the same has become infructuous, as the election has already been held and the result for the post of the Vice President has been declared and the Vice President is serving as the President as well. 10. By way of filing I.A. No. 3068 of 2018, the petitioner has sought stay of operation of the notifications dated 26.03.2018 & 27.03.2018 whereby the Vice President (Ayurveda) has been appointed. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner No.1 that he was elected as the Vice President on 22.03.2014 and as such his tenure is valid till 21.03.2019 and thus during subsistence of his tenure, no member can be elected as the Vice President. 11. I am of the considered view that since the petitioner No.1 had resigned from the membership on 16.10.2017, he had no right to continue as the Vice President, as the primary requirement for being elected or to continue on the post of the President or the Vice President is that he should be the member of the CCIM. In the judgment dated 11.07.2018 rendered by the learned Division Bench of Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 167 of 2018, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also, it has been observed that the election of the appellant (Dr. Vanitha. In the judgment dated 11.07.2018 rendered by the learned Division Bench of Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 167 of 2018, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also, it has been observed that the election of the appellant (Dr. Vanitha. R) held for the President of the Council in March, 2017 leads to her continuation in the office for the period as provided under Section 7(1), but if her tenure as a Council member ends before March, 2022, she would be deemed to vacate the office as the President on that date. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to notify the result of the election of the petitioners in the Gazette Notification forthwith as provided in Rule 21 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rule, 1975, if the same has not yet been notified.