ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification contained in Reference No. 20/AAYUS Vividh-10/2016-288/20 dated 01.11.2017 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) by which respondent no. 7 (Baidya Amitabh Kumar) has been declared elected for the State of Jharkhand in the Election for the Member of Central Council of Indian Medicine (hereinafter referred to as “CCIM”), since the election result has been declared before the last date of exercising option to withdraw the name of the candidate intending to contest the election. A further prayer has been made for quashing the entire election process of the Members of CCIM till Jharkhand Rajya AYUSH Chikitsa Parishad prepares a proper voter list of those doctors registered under the Council in accordance with law after re-organization of the State. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to prepare a fresh voter list, since the petitioner who is already registered in the CCIM, but his name has not been included in the voter list, though he is presently working in the State of Jharkhand as Ayurvedic Medical Officer. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to include his name in the voter list. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents including the respondent no. 7 raise a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and submit that in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1970”) r/w Rule 25 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Election) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 1975”), the petitioner should have taken recourse of Section 4 of the Act, 1970 and Rule 25 of the Rules, 1975, if at all he was aggrieved by the publication of result declaring the petitioner elected as a member of the CCIM. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the writ petition as well as the provisions of the Act, 1970 and the Rules, 1975. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1970 reads as under: “Where any dispute arises regarding any election to the Central Council, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final.” 5. Rule 25 of the Rules, 1975 reads as under: “25. 4. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1970 reads as under: “Where any dispute arises regarding any election to the Central Council, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final.” 5. Rule 25 of the Rules, 1975 reads as under: “25. Power to declare any election void-(1) The Central Government may, on any election dispute referred to it under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, for an election, within a period of thirty days from the date of election of the elected candidate, declare the election to be void on account of bribery, undue influence or other corrupt practice which, in the opinion of the Central Government, has interfered with the free and fair conduct of the election and shall conduct a fresh election.” 6. On perusal of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1970 as well as Rule 25 of the Rules, 1975, it would be evident that a complete mechanism with regard to redressal of dispute relating to election of a candidate in the Central Council has been provided in the said Act and the Rules. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has not averred that he has taken any step for getting the dispute referred to the Central Government as provided under the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules. 7. In view of the said facts, the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to work out his remedies, if so advised, as provided under the law.