DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ :

1. This appeal is filed by the Union of India on being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24th May, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent herein, being WP (c) No. 2593/06 holding that there was no justification for deletion of the name of the respondent from the electoral roll or voters list and also giving an observation that the respondent would nevertheless be entitled as on date to seek election to the post of President, as per the Act and the Rules. The Act and the Rules, which are referred to, are ‘The Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder.

2. A writ petition was filed by the respondent, which was registered as Civil Writ Petition No.1186/2006, wherein he challenged the appointment of Administrator to the Central Council of Homoeopathy. The writ petition was disposed of with the following order, which was passed on 7th February, 2006:

“There is no need to reflect upon the finding or efficacy of the Report of the Enquiry Commission, which admittedly has not been signed by all the Members. After hearing arguments in some detail, learned counsel for the Respondent on instructions from Dr. Alok Kumar, Deputy Advisor, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoepathy(Ayush), states that elections shall be conducted in accordance with Section 7(1) of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 within a period of four weeks from today. He further states that the impugned Order dated 18-1-2006 shall not be acted upon in these circumstances. Prima facie there appears to be no provision in the statute for the appointment of an Administrator. This is manifestly clear from the Report of the Rajya Sabha pertaining to the proposed Homeopathy Central Council (Amendment) Bill, 2005. The Respondents had set up a case for the amendment to the Statute empowering the appointment of an Administrator. The Committee expressed the opinion that such a provision would not be democratic and in the interest of the Council. Inasmuch as the Administrator has been appointed, the impugned Order does not have the sanction of law. It is accordingly quashed. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in these terms.”

3. The appellant thereafter took steps for holding election to the office bearers of the Central Council. At that stage the name of the respondent was not reflected in the list prepared by the Returning Officer. Consequently, the petition out of which the present appeal arises was filed. An interim order was passed in the said writ petition on 2nd March, 2006 permitting holding of election to the post of President and Vice President to be conducted under Section 7(1) of the Act.

.4. In the said writ petition, the appellant herein took a definite stand that the name of the respondent was rightly deleted from the list prepared by the Returning Officer on the ground that he had ceased to be a elected member of the Council effective from 4th December, 1997 consequent upon his having been nominated under the provisions of Section 3(1)(c) of the said Act.

5. The respondent, however, also took up a very strong stand that he never intended to be nominated as a nominated member nor his name was nominated with his consent. It is his contention that he never resigned as an elected member and, therefore, the action of the appellant in nominating him without his consent and knowledge as a nominated member was without jurisdiction and cannot be operational.

.6. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid stand taken by the contesting parties. It was held that the elections have become due so far State of Bihar is concerned in 1995 but no such election was held. The other two representatives, who were elected along with the respondent, continued as members of the Central Council. In that context, it was held that the respondent would, therefore, be deemed to be continuing as a