Daljit Singh Kang And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 896 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Sharma, J.

(1) In this writ petition filed by the petitioners in the nature of public interest litigation directions are sought for quashing the transfer of registration of the respondent No. 3 from Delhi to Punjab and also for quashing of nomination/election of the respondent No. 3 as a member of the Dental Council of India on the strength of such transfer of registration. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners also filed a stay application contending inter alia, that the transfer of registration of the respondent No. 3 from Delhi to Punjab is illegal and unjustified and that he has no right to continue as a member of the Dental Council on the strength of such illegal transfer of registration. In the stay application the petitioners seek for stay of the communication dated 23.8.1995 whereby the respondent No. 3 has been called to function as a member of the Dental Council by the respondent No. 2.

(3) This Court on 18.10.1995 issued notice on both the writ petition and stay application in pursuance of which the respondent No. 3 has appeared and contested both the writ petition and stay application by filing counter affidavit. The respondents Nos. 2 & 6 have also filed affidavits before us. As notices on all the respondents have not yet been served we are not in a position to hear the writ petition finally and accordingly on the prayer of the Counsel for the petitioner and with the consent of the Counsel appearing for the respondents Nos. 3 & 6, we take up the stay application filed by the petitioners for consideration.

(3) The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No. 6 who supported the cause espoused by the petitioners took us through the relevant provisions of the Dentist Act, particularly the provisions of Sections 33,34 and 46A of the said Act and submitted that since the respondent No. 3 did not entirely shift his practice to Punjab from Delhi, he could not have been allowed transfer of his registration from Delhi to Punjab and also could not have been nominated as a member of Dental Council of India from Punjab. The learned Counsel relied upon the expression "resides and carries on the profession of dentistry" appearing in Sections 33 and 34 of the Dentist Act in support of his aforesaid submission and desired that we should read the said expression by adding the word 'entirely' or 'primarily' before the said expression. If it is so read, according to the learned Counsel the respondent No. 3 does not fulfill the requirement for registration in the State of Punjab as he did not shift his practice to Punjab entirely.

(4) The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, raised several preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition including non-impleading the necessary party to the writ petition i.e. State of Punjab which nominated the respondent No. 3 to the Dental Council of India and accordingly submitted that since the writ petition is not maintainable in its present form, the question of granting any stay at this stage does not arise. He further submitted that the interpretation given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the expression "resides or carries on the profession of dentistry" and to Sections 33 & 34 are erroneous for it is not possible to add any word to the provision of a Statute when the meaning of the provision is clear and unambiguous.

(5) We however, feel that the issues raised before us relate to the merit of the case and require in-depth consideration by us which we would do when we hear 719 the writ petition finally after service of notice on all the respondents. At this stage we are concerned primarily as to whether an interim order should be passed as prayed for by the petitioners staying the nomination of the respondent No. 3 to the Dental Council of India by the State of Punjab, after transfer of his registration from Delhi to Punjab. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that staying the nomination of the respondent No. 3 to the Dental Council of India by the State of Punjab at this stage and without the said State being a party before us, would amount to virtually giving final relief to the petitioners, as the same is also one of the two principal reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Issuance of such interim relief would also mean depriving the respondent No. 3 from his right of continuing as a member of the Dental Council of India being nominated thereto by the State of Punjab, which we are prima facie satisfied, would affect the interest of the respondent No. 3 adversely, having a far-reaching effect on his right and status. This, in our opinion, ought not to be done at the interim stage without hearing the parties at length on merits of the case. We, therefore, reject the prayer for interim stay and dismiss the stay application.

(6) We, however, feel that the writ petition should be heard early, i.e. immediately after service of notice on all the respondents. Accordingly, it be placed on for necessary directions thereto.