Hirenbhai Navnitlal Bhojak vs Dental Council Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 12620 Guj

       C/SCA/12185/2021                                ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12185 of 2021

==========================================================
                          HIRENBHAI NAVNITLAL BHOJAK
                                     Versus
                            DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                Date : 26/08/2021

                                 ORAL ORDER

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mrugen K. Purohit on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit draws the attention of this Court to Section 6 sub section (1) of the Dentist Act, 1948 whereby it is interalia provided that an elected or nominated member shall hold the office for a term of five years from the date of his election or nomination or until his successor has been duly elected or nominated, whichever is longer. (emphasis supplied). Learned Advocate submits that inspite of such clear provision in the statute, the respondent council vide notification dated 17.10.2008 has restricted the tenure by coming out with a regulation under the title " Dental Council of India" (term of Office of Membership of DCI) Regulations 2008, whereby instead of the unlimited time period as envisaged in the Act, ie an elected member holding his office till his successor has been duly elected, the period is restricted by the said regulation to a period of 6 months after the expiry of the term of 5 years. Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit has submitted that the power to frame the regulations are found in Section 20 of the Act and whereas even apart from

C/SCA/12185/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021

the settled proposition of law in this regard the Act itself envisages that regulations shall not be in-consistent with the provisions of the Act yet according to the learned Advocate such a regulation has been passed whereby the tenure as granted by the Act is attempted to be restricted. At this stage learned Advocate Mr. Purhohit fairly draws the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in writ petition 6431 of 2009 whereby the same issue was under consideration of the said Court and whereas the regulations which are impugned in the present petitions had been set aside by the Madras High Court. Learned Advocate further points out to this Court that the said judgment of the Madras High Court had been challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP No. 1375 of 2009 and whereas vide interim order dated 29.5.2009 the Hon'ble Apex Court has thought it fit to stay the judgment of the Madras High Court.

3. In view of the same since the matter is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, let a Notice be issued to the respondent returnable on 30.9.2021.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) MARY VADAKKAN