A bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Amit Bansal upheld the order of the Government of India in appointing Dr. Ashok Khandelwal to discharge the functions of President of the Dental Council of India stating that it is essential that institutions like the council, performing important public functions, continue to retain their democratic character as democratic values are the essence of our society and elections are the bedrock of democracy.

Facts of the case:

A writ petition was filed by four petitioners, who are members of the Dental Council of India. The petitioners challenged the order of Government of India (respondent no 1) dated 11th May, 2021 asking the Dr. Ashok Khandelwal (respondent no. 3)  to discharge the functions of President of the Dental Council of India (respondent no. 2) with immediate effect as the post for both President as well as Vice President was vacant.

Contention of the petitioner:

Mr. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted the following contention:

  1. It was pointed out that under the provisions of the Act the respondent no.1 does not have any power to appoint President of the respondent no.2 council contending further that the President or Vice President of the respondent no.2 council shall be elected by the members thereof from among themselves.
  2. It was also contended that the respondent no.3 should not have been appointed the President, even on a temporary basis as he is neither the senior most member, nor the most experienced/qualified member of the respondent no.2 council.
  3. It was further stated that none of the provisions of the Act relied upon by the respondents give any power to the respondent no.1 to appoint the President of the respondent no.2 council. Moreover, the constitutional provisions relied upon by the respondents would have a role to play only if there were no statutory provisions
  4. In the light of the above it was prayed that the impugned Order be stayed and a Chairman be elected by the six current members of the Executive Committee of the respondent no.2 council and further that election be directed to be held for the post of Vice President.

Contention of the respondents:

The following contentions have been submitted on behalf of the respondent:

  1. It was submitted that respondent no.1 had to issue the impugned Order dated 11th May, 2021 in view of the unprecedented situation, where the offices of both the President and the Vice President had fallen vacant.
  2. As neither the Act nor the Regulations deal with the situation when the offices of the President as well as the Vice President are vacant therefore the order was made in public interest so that the respondent no.2 council continues to function with an effective regulator and so as to ensure its smooth functioning.
  3. It was also submitted that respondent no.1 was empowered to issue the impugned Order as the respondent no.2 council is directly under the superintendence and supervision of the respondent no.1.
  4. It was argued that appointment of the respondent no.3 was purely temporary and ad hoc and has been done invoking the doctrine of necessity as the offices of President/Vice President are vacant and an important body like the respondent no.2 council cannot be left headless.
  5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3 stated that he is a reputed dentist and is fully qualified to be nominated to act as the President of the respondent no.2 council.

Observation and judgment of court:

The learned bench made the following observation:

  1. A reading of the Act and the Regulations left no doubt in the mind of the bench that the office of the President is essential for smooth functioning of the respondent no.2 council and the public functions of respondent no.2 council will be prejudiced in the absence of a President.
  2. The question whether or not the respondent no.1 had the power to nominate/appoint a person to discharge the functions of the President of the respondent no.2 council in the absence of an elected President/Vice President, can only be decided at the final hearing of the present petition and not at the interim stage.
  3. It was also noted that nothing had been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners as to the prejudice caused to the petitioners by the appointment of the respondent no.3, to discharge the functions of the President of the respondent no.2 council.
  4. The petitioners had not been able to establish any urgency or the balance of convenience in their favour or the fact that irreparable injury and harm would be caused to them in case the interim relief as sought is not granted.

In the view of the above, the court did not find it appropriate to stay the order appointing the president by Government of India. It also directed the respondents to forthwith hold elections for the post of Vice President, as per procedure prescribed in the Act and the Regulations. Justice G.S. Sistani has been appointed as an observer to the election process.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Anusree Deb