The main legal point established in the judgment is that private associations and their internal dispute resolution mechanisms, not created by statute and lacking quasi-judicial functions, are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner a practicing Orthopaedic Surgeon from Gwalior has filed this writ petition purportedly under Article 227 of the Constitution and calls in question the elections held to the M.P. Branch of the Indian Medical Association. It is said that the election held is illegal as certain irregularities and illegalities have been committed, matter came to this Court at the instance of certain parties including the petitioner in W.P. No. 10181/13 and, thereafter, in W.A. No. 568/13. The Writ Court and the Writ Appellate Court took note of various aspects of the matter and finally as a remedy of raising the election dispute before the Election Tribunal by way of an election petition was available under Clause 35 (C) (3) and in terms of the Article of Association and the Memorandum, Rules and Bye-laws of the Indian Medical Association, M.P. State Branch, the petitions and the writ appeals were disposed of relegating the parties to take recourse to the remedy available of approaching the Tribunal.

2. It is stated that petitioner has raised the dispute before the Election Tribunal and now the grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the Election Tribunal is not proceeding in the matter and is insisting upon the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards expenses for travelling and other expenses for the members of the Tribunal conducting the proceedings. Seeking a direction to the Election Tribunal to decide the election dispute raised by the petitioner in accordance with the Bye-laws of the association at an earlier date, petitioner has approached this Court.

3. On notice being issued, respondents have filed the return and apart from raising various objections and questions with regard to the right of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, respondents have stated that petitioner has not complied with certain directions issued by the Tribunal and, therefore, the petition be dismissed.

4. During the course of hearing of this writ petition on 11-11-13, a question with regard to jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution was raised. It was submitted by Shri R.K. Sanghi, learned Counsel for the respondents Association and Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal that the Indian Medical Association and the M.P. State Branch of the Indian Medical Association is nothing, but an Association of private individuals and doctors. It is not an authority or a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It does not perform any public duties or Governmental activities and, therefore, it was argued that it is neither a State nor an authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Per contra Shri Sankalp Kochar submitted that this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and petitioner is seeking a certiorari to the Election Tribunal to conduct its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Bye-laws and, therefore, for issuing a direction to the Tribunal, the power of certiorari available to this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised.

6. Shri Sankalp Kochar invited my attention to the Bye-laws and the objects of the memorandum formulated by the Indian Medical Association, M.P. State Branch and tried to emphasise that if these objects are taken note of, it would be seen that the association is acting towards promotion of health in the State of M.P. and, therefore, it discharges public/Government functions and is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

7. That apart, it is submitted by him that when an Election Tribunal is created, the Tribunal has to discharge its functions in accordance to law and if that is not done, then the jurisdiction available to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised. He invites my attention to the following judgment in support of his contentions Virendra Kumar Shrivastava Vs. U.P. Rajya Karmachari Kalyan Nigam and another, (2005) 1 SCC 149, to