Delhi High Court
Dr B. R. Ambedkar Institute Of Dental ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 July, 2024
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 525/2024 & CM APPLs.36361/2024, 36362/2024, 36363/2024
DR B. R. AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND
HOSPITAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Ankur Mahindro, Mr.Shaurya
Lamba, Mr.Soumil Gonsalves,
Ms.Vishali S., Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Mr.Kushagra Kumar, Mr.Abhinav
Bhardwaj, Advocates for UOI
Mr.T Singhdev, Mr.Bhanu Gulati,
Mr.Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr.Anum
Hussain, Mr.Tanishq Srivastava,
Mr.Aabhaas Sukramani, Mr.Sourabh
Kumar, Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur,
Advocates for R-4 (DCI)
% Date of Decision: 08th July, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 14th May,
2024 passed in W.P. (C) 4058/2024, whereby the learned Single Judge
upheld the decision/letter dated 5th March, 2024 issued by Respondent no.1
[Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Dental Education Section),
Government of India], whereby the Central Government accepted the
recommendations of the Respondent no.4/Dental Council of India ('DCI')
for withdrawing recognition of the appellant institution under Section 16A
of the Dentist Act, 1948, stoppage of admission in the institution, closure of
the college and shifting of students studying in the institution and the
consequent communication dated 7th March, 2024 from the MoHFW to the
DCI, directing taking of necessary action to shift the students studying in the
appellant institution to another dental college within the State of Bihar.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that on 30th August, 2021,
consequent to a demand of Rs.50,00,000/- by and on behalf of the DCI
officials as a cost for not disturbing the admission process in BDS Course,
the Appellant institute through its Chairman lodged an F.I.R against the DCI
officials. He states that on 22nd August, 2022, as a counter blast to the
aforementioned FIR, DCI through its Executive Committee conducted
inspection of the Appellant Institute and found deficiencies contrary to the
earlier inspection dated 12th February, 2019.
3. He states that DCI vide its letter dated 11th November, 2022 addressed
to Respondent No.1 recommended the Central Government to stop
admission in BDS and MDS Courses in the Appellant institute from the
Academic Year 2022-23. A personal hearing was granted to the Appellant
institute on 2nd December, 2022, wherein the Appellant institute submitted a
compliance report dated 1st December, 2022, giving clarification with
respect to the deficiencies pointed out by DCI.
4. He states that the Central Government on 7th December, 2022 directed
the DCI to verify the compliance report and evidence submitted by the
Appellant Institute. He states that a fresh inspection was conducted on 20th
& 21st December, 2022, wherein an identical report was submitted on 28th
December, 2022.
5. He states that after receipt of the Inspection Report dated 28th
December, 2022, Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 28th April, 2023,
requested State of Bihar/Respondent no.5 to provide its comments on the
issue. He further states that Respondent no.5 issued a show cause notice to
the Appellant institute which was duly replied to. However, Respondent
no.5 failed to provide any comments to the Central Government on the
issue, whereafter the impugned letters dated 5th & 7th March, 2024 were
issued.
6. Though, the appellant has made allegations of personal mala fide
against Dr. Dibyendu Majumdar, yet he has not been impleaded as a
respondent to the present proceedings.
7. It is settled law that where allegations of personal malice in fact are
made against a particular individual, the said individual has to be impleaded
as a respondent to enable him/her answer the charge. A judicial
pronouncement declaring an action to be mala fide is a serious indictment of
the person concerned that can lead to adverse civil consequences against
him. [See: Rajneesh Khajuria vs. Wockhardt Limited and Another, (2020)
3 SCC 86)
8. Further, in the present case, two inspections were carried out by
different Inspectors and in each case, the Inspecting Officers were of the
stature of head of departments or principals of different institutions or senior
medical personnel. They were the best persons to assess the competence of
the petitioner to provide education as a dental educational institution. It is
settled law that the Courts must defer to the decision of the experts unless it
is found to be completely capricious or unsustainable in law - which we do
not find in the present case.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for liberty to
implead Dr. Dibyendu Majumdar as a party to the present proceedings.
However, as Dr. Dibyendu Majumdar was not a respondent in the
underlying writ petition and the learned Single Judge has not had the
opportunity of hearing his say, this Court is of the view that the said prayer
cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the said prayer is declined.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal along with pending
applications being bereft of merit is dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JULY 8, 2024
AS
