IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that rejection of nominations must be based on non-compliance with the prescribed rules, and objections raised by candidates must be considered within the parameters of the relevant rules.

JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The four petitioners before the Court are registered pharmacists under the West Bengal Pharmacy Council. The petitioners seek quashing of a notice published by the West Bengal Pharmacy Council on 20th December, 2022 announcing the final list of accepted/rejected candidates after scrutiny in the West Bengal Pharmacy Council Elections-2022. The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their nominations by the Council which were for the elections to the West Bengal Pharmacy Council for 2022.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invites the Court to interfere in the impugned rejections on the ground that the reasons given for rejection of the nominations of the candidates were not indicated in the prescribed Form. Counsel submits that the petitioners were also deprived of the remedy provided under the relevant Rule as notified on 22nd July, 1966. It is also submitted that the petitioners took due steps under Rule 5(1) of the said Rules for redressal of their grievance but this was denied to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Registrar/respondent no. 6 places the relevant dates to submit that the petitioners were aware of the reasons for the rejection at the time of scrutiny but sent mails to the Council asking for the same feigning ignorance of the information which was already available to the petitioners. Counsel submits that final list of candidates was published on 23rd December, 2020 in accordance with the Election Rules and that the petitioners sent mails for reconsideration of their candidatures only on 1st January, 2023. Counsel submits that the writ petition is not maintainable since the election process commenced with the issuance of the Election Notice on 14th September, 2022 and culminated with the declaration of results.

4. The contentions made on behalf of the Registrar of the Council are adopted by learned counsel appearing for the Council and the State. According to counsel, the writ petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 were present at the time of scrutiny and were aware of the rejection of their nominations. It is submitted that the writ petitioners did not raise any objection under Rule 5(1) of the Rules and only sent an enquiry much later. It is submitted that the election process should not be stalled as the election had already commenced with the publication of the Election Notice in September, 2022. It is also submitted that the petitioners have a mechanism for redressal under the Rules where the State Government shall decide on any question as to the construction of the Rules including the validity of the election.

5. The controversy in the present writ petition is centred on the construction of Rule 5(1) of the Rules for the election members of the West Bengal Pharmacy Council and the Executive Committee as notified by the State Department of Health on 22nd July, 1966. These Rules were framed under section 46(2) of The Pharmacy Act, 1948. Rule 5(1) is set out below:

“5. (1) On the date and at the time as fixed for the scrutiny of nominations by the notification under rule 2, the Returning Officer shall scrutinise all the nomination papers strictly with reference to the final electoral roll and decide which of them are in order and which are not. Nomination papers which do not comply with the requirements of rule 3 shall be rejected. If there be any objection by any candidate to the decision of the Returning Officer, it must be made forthwith, and the objection shall be heard by the Returning Officer and two members of the Council, not being candidates for the election, appointed by the President, and their decision thereon shall be final.”

6. Several points may be gleaned from the extracted Rule:

(i) The nomination may be rejected for non-compliance of Rule 3 of the Rules.

(ii) A candidate may object to the decision of the Returning Officer forthwith.

(iii) The objection shall be heard by the Returning Officer and two members of the Council constituted