On  5th July, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Prateek Jalan, while deciding the validity of the decision of Union of India in invalidating the election of Dr. Dibyendu Mazumdar to the post of the president of the Dental Council of India held that the qualification of the petitioner to participate in the election under the Act, and the conduct of the election, must be governed by the statutory scheme. The Court cannot overlay its policy preferences with regard to age limits, term limits etc. into the statutorily prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.

The court further held that since the petitioner had not been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard therefore the principle of Natural Justice was violated and in such case the Court would examine the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether a remand to the decision-making authority is required.

Facts of the case:

The present writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged  an order of the Union of India  by which his election to the post of the President of Dental Council of India [“DCI”] was declared illegal and invalid as he had attained the age of 65 years, and the Vice-President was given charge as the President of DCI.  The impugned order of UOI was challenged on the ground that it was in breach of the principles of natural justice, and on merits

Contention of the Petitioner:

Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel, advanced the following contention:

  1. The counsel assailed with regard to the principles of natural justice that the procedure adopted by the UOI was contrary to Regulation 20 of the Regulations, inasmuch as the petitioner was not given a proper show cause notice prior to the impugned order.
  2. Mr. Singh also urged that, on a proper interpretation of Regulation 20, the show cause notice was required to be issued subsequent to the inquiry and report obtained under Regulation 20(2), and prior to the UOI taking a decision in the matter.
  3. It was also submitted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to appear personally either before the Committee, or before the concerned officer of the UOI.
  4. Mr. Singh argued that neither the Act nor the Regulations stipulate a maximum age limit, either for election as a member of the DCI under Section 3(d) of the Act, or as its President under Section 7 thereof, rendering the impugned order legally baseless.

Contention of the respondent:

Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing  on behalf of both, the UOI and the DCI contended the following:

  1. With regard to the petitioner’s challenge on the ground of natural justice, Mr. Sharma submitted that the inquiry undertaken by the UOI prior to the issuance of the impugned order was an extensive and elaborate exercise during the course of which notice was issued to the petitioner and his contentions were considered.
  2. It was contended that the petitioner’s reliance upon Regulation 20 is misplaced as the said provision finds place in Chapter II of the Regulations, which is entitled “Elections to the Council under Clause (a) of Section 3”
  3. It was further argued that the placement of Regulation 20 in Chapter II of the Regulations, which deals only with elections under Section 3(a), and its exclusion from the chapters dealing with elections under other clauses of Section 3, constitutes an implied exclusion of the principles of natural justice in the present case.
  4. The learned ASG also submitted that the applicable Regulations of the DCI do not permit appointment of a person over 65 years of age as a member of faculty in a dental college. According to him, this had been upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rattan Lal Jain vs. UOI and Others.
  5. The learned ASG lastly urged that the extraordinary equitable remedy provided under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be exercised in favour of a candidate such as the petitioner who has already served as President, DCI for ten years as it was an effort to perpetuate the dominance of the petitioner over the DCI.

Observation and judgement of court:

The court made the following observation:

  1. The qualification of the petitioner to participate in the election under the Act, and the conduct of the election, must therefore be governed by the statutory scheme. The Court cannot overlay its policy preferences with regard to age limits, term limits etc. into the statutorily prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.
  2. The UOI in considering representations challenging the election of the petitioner to a statutory post must have complied with the principles of natural justice, regardless of the statutory provision.
  3. Applying principles of natural justice to the facts of the present case the court was of the view that the proceedings before the Committee and the process by which the UOI has passed the impugned order, were both inadequate to meet the requirements of natural justice.
  4. The court was also satisfied that the petitioner has been put to disadvantage and prejudice as a result of the aforesaid breaches of natural justice.

In such circumstances, the court held that the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the matter was remanded to the UOI for a fresh decision.

Thus, the petition was disposed off.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Anusree