SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Mad) 1560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Dr. V.S. Dorairaj - Petitioner
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Medical Council represented by its Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 27348 of 2015 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2015
Decided on : 02-06-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate for Mr. K.S. Jayaganesan
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Wilson, Mr. K.R. Narayanan Mr. R. Murali, Mr. G. Sankaran

The validity of the resolution dated 24.08.2015 and the impact of subsequent events on the relief sought in the writ petition.

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Medical Council - Challenge to Resolution - Tamil Nadu Medical Registration Act 4 of 1914, Section 5 - The court discussed the validity of the resolution dated 24.08.2015, which elected the second respondent as the President of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. The court found that the resolution was in accordance with the bylaws and the subsequent events, including the resignation of the second respondent and the election of the sixth respondent as President, rendered the relief sought in the writ petition redundant.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the resolution dated 24.08.2015, which elected the second respondent as the President of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. The petitioner claimed that the meeting was convened without proper notice and agenda, and that the subsequent events did not render the relief sought in the writ petition redundant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the resolution dated 24.08.2015, electing the second respondent as President, was in accordance with the bylaws and valid. The court also held that the subsequent events, including the resignation of the second respondent and the election of the sixth respondent as President, rendered the relief sought in the writ petition redundant.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the resolution dated 24.08.2015, the compliance with notice and agenda requirements, and the impact of subsequent events on the relief sought in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the resolution dated 24.08.2015 was valid and in accordance with the bylaws. The court also found that the subsequent events, including the resignation of the second respondent and the election of the sixth respondent as President, rendered the relief sought in the writ petition redundant.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court found no reason to interfere with the resolution dated 24.08.2015, and consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

ORDER :

The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the resolution dated 24.08.2015 passed by the first respondent in and by which the first respondent declared the second respondent as the President of the Tamil Nadu Medical Council in the election conducted on 24.08.2015.

2. The case of the petitioner, as could be culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he was the duly elected President of the first respondent council, which is a statutory body within the State of Tamil Nadu as provided under the Tamil Nadu Medical Registration Act 4 of 1914. According to the petitioner, the members of the first respondent will be nominated and duly elected in accordance with Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Medical Registration Act. The petitioner would further contend that the council consisting of 10 members out of which 7 members were elected by the registered medical practitioner and 3 were nominated by the State Government.

3. According to the petitioner, he retired as Director of Institute of Venerology in the Madras Medical College and had rendered 33 years of government service. On consideration of such length of service, the petitioner was nominated by the State Government as a member of the first respondent council by issuing GO (D) No.962, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 19.08.2011 and from that date he was functioning as member of the first respondent council. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent herein was elected as President of the first respondent council but he resigned during June 2014. Therefore, a fresh election was conducted to the post of first respondent council during which the name of the petitioner was proposed for election as President of the first respondent council. Accordingly, on 04.06.2014, the petitioner was elected as President of the first respondent council. After holding the post of President for some time, the petitioner submitted his resignation requesting to relieve him from the post of President. The petitioner also sent a reminder on 06.01.2015 however, the members of the first respondent council resolved to allow the petitioner to continue as President of the first respondent council. Thereafter, on 29.07.2015, the general council meeting of the council was convened and the agenda of the meeting was duly served to all the members. The agenda include taking disciplinary action against some of the members based on the complaint received by the first respondent council. However, two days before the commencement of the meeting on 29.07.2015, on 27.07.2015, His Excellency Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, former President of India passed away and therefore both the Central and State Government declared mourning. Therefore, on 29.07.2015, even though the meeting was convened, it was convened as a meeting to mourn the death of the former President of the Nation. After the conclusion of the meeting, even though it was declared as a mourning, the respondents 2 to 8 wanted to move a resolution about the general business of the council which was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that when once a reference was over, there cannot be any convening of meeting since it is opposed to the convention of the council. Notwithstanding such opposition, the members of the first respondent council moved a No confidence motion against the petitioner and resolved to elect a new President on 13.08.2015. In the above stated circumstances, the petitioner filed WP No. 23656 of 2015 before this Court and obtained an interim order of status quo. Even though the respondents were aware of the order of status quo granted by this Court, they have disobeyed the order by resolving to conduct a meeting on 13th and 14th of August 2015 and therefore the petitioner sent a statutory notice. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 1777 of 2015. At the time of hearing of the contempt petition as well as WP No. 23656 of 2015 on 17.08.2015, it was represented




































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top