Gujarat High Court
Hirenbhai Navnitlal Bhojak vs Dental Council Of India on 5 August, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/12185/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022
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
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 05/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. On 26.08.2021, this Court had passed the following
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 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
C/SCA/12185/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/08/2022
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. "
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned
advocate Mr.Mrugen K. Purohit, has very fairly pointed out that
the SLP, which is referred in the interim order dated
26.08.2021, is finally decided by the Apex Court vide order
dated 24.02.2022, holding the regulation as valid. He has
submitted that in view of the order of the Apex Court, the
prayers made in the writ petition, will not survive.
3. This Court has perused the interim order dated
26.08.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench in the present writ
petition. The Coordinate Bench has referred to the SLP
No.1375 of 2009, which is converted to Civil Appeal No.7333 of
2013. The said Civil Appeal has been decided by the order
dated 24.02.2022, upholding the validity of the regulations,
which are challenged in the present writ petition.
4. Thus, the present writ petition is rejected in view of the
order passed by the Apex Court dated 24.02.2022. Notice is
discharged.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
MAHESH BHATI/
