The Pondicherry Dentists Association v. The Government of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 27.04.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHUWrit Petition No.2327 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009The Pondicherry Dentists Association,Rep. by its Treasurer,Dr.Manohar C.P.,No.111, Lal Bahadur Sastri Street,Pondicherry.... Petitioner Vs.1.The Government of India,Rep. by its Secretary,Department of Health,Ministry of Health,New Delhi.2.The Government of Pondicherry,Rep. by its Secretary (Health),Pondicherry.3.The Government of Tamil Nadu,Rep. by it's Home Secretary,Fort St. George,Chennai.4.The Director General of Police,Tamil Nadu,Chennai.... Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of TheConstitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents 1 and 2 herein to forthwith constitute the State DentalCouncil for the State of Pondicherry as per Section 21 of theDentists Act 1948.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kalyana SundaramFor R.1 : Mr.V.Ravi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R.3 & 4 : Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar, Special Government PleaderFor R.2 : Mr.D.Murugesan, SC Government Pleader (P) O R D E RNon constitution of State Dental Council under the Dentists Act,16 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act), even after severalyears of the adaptation of the said Act, for the Union Territory ofPuducherry, is aimed as grievance in this writ petition wherein, thepetitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 toforthwith constitute such a State Dental Council as required underSection 21 of the Act.2.The petitioner is an Association of Dentists known as "ThePondicherry Dentists Association". The members of the petitionerAssociation are all qualified Dentists. They were registered asDentists in the Union Territory of Puducherry by the RegistrationTribunal as per Section 32 of the Act. But their names were notrenewed and no renewal certificates were issued to them as requiredunder Section 39 of the Act, since no State Dental Council has beenconstituted for Union Territory of Puducherry.3.On an earlier occasion, the petitioner Association filedW.P.No.3304 of 1984, for a similar direction to the Government ofPuducherry to forthwith constitute the State Dental Council. Duringthe pendency of the said writ petition, it was brought to the noticeof the Court that constitution of the State Dental Council could notbe made since there were disputes pending before this Court inrespect of the Registration Tribunal in W.P.No.8164 of 1984.Recording the same, this Court by order dated 06.08.1984 passed thefollowing order:-"....At this juncture, I take note of thestatement made by Mr.S.Govindasamy, learnedGovernment Pleader for Pondicherry that theconstitution of the State Dental Council may beresorted to after the disposal of the matterpending in this Court. As it is, I am not able tocountenance the prayer as it stands projected bythe members of the petitioner's Association inthis writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petitionis dismissed."4.Another Association of Dentists known as "Indian DentalAssociation" had filed W.P.No.8164 of 1984 to quash the GazetteNotification published in the Gazatte of Pondicherry Part IExtrairdubart dated 22.06.1982 constituting Registration Tribunal by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the first respondent therein and for further direction to the firstrespondent to constitute fresh Registration Tribunal as contemplatedunder Section 32(1) of the Act. This Court by order dated 25.06.1992dismissed the said writ petition. The Writ Appeal filed by the saidAssociation in W.A.No.2066 of 1992 against the said order was alsodismissed.5.Thereafter, the petitioner Association filed another writpetition in W.P.No.7378 of 1998 contending that since the writpetition regarding the constitution of the Registration Tribunal hasbeen dismissed by this Court, at least now the State Dental Councilmay be constituted forthwith. When the matter was taken up forhearing on 04.07.2006, it was represented by the learned GovernmentPleader, Puducherry that the Dental Council for Puducherry State hadbeen constituted. Recording the said statement, the said writpetition was dismissed as infcrutuous. 6.But, as a matter of fact, no such State Dental Council wasconstituted for the Union Territory of Puducherry. Therefore, thepetitioner Association has again come forward with the present writpetition with the same prayer.7.The learned Senior Counsel/ Government Pleader (Puducherry)appearing for the respondents would submit that so far, no StateDental Council has been constituted and the statement made by him inthe earlier writ petition in W.P.No.7378 of 1998 was incorrect. Thelearned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Government ofPuducherry is now taking steps to constitute a State Dental Council.The said statement is recorded.8.Before going into the other issues involved in the writpetition, let me first analyse the scheme of the Act. Section 32 ofthe Act, speaks of first preparation of register of Dentists.According to the said provision, there shall be an RegistrationTribunal which will examine every application received on or beforethe appointed date, and if it is satisfied that the applicant isqualified for registration, under Section 33, it shall direct theentry in register. Thus, the initial burden to prepare a register iswith the Registration Tribunal. In the case on hand, suchRegistration Tribunal was constituted for the Union Territory ofPuducherry which was challenged by the another Association inW.P.No.8164 of 1984. Since the said writ petition was pending,according to the Government of Puducherry, State Dental Council couldnot be constituted. The said writ petition was disposed of 25.06.1982and writ appeal was also dismissed. 9.Admittedly, there has been no interim order granted by thisCourt in respect of the Constitution of the Registration Tribunal.Therefore, the Tribunal has prepared the first Register of Dentistsfor Union Territory of Puducherry and the members of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Association have got their names registered also.10.Now the difficulty for the members of the petitionerAssociation is that since there is no State Dental Council for UnionTerritory of Puduhcerry, they are not able to get their registrationrenewed as required under Section 39 of the Act.11.At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to Section 21of the Act, which mandates that every State shall constitute a StateDental Council. As soon as such a Council is constituted, theregister of Dentists prepared by the Registration Tribunal shall begiven to the custody of the State Dental Council as required underSection 32(6) of the Act. After the constitution of such Council,renewal shall be made only by the Council as per Section 39 of theAct. 12.A close analysis of the above provisions would make itmanifestly clear that in case where no such Dental Council has beenconstituted as per Section 39 of the Act, the Registration Tribunalitself has got the power to renew and issue appropriate certificate.But in this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that though itsmembers have been repeatedly approaching the Government, theRegistration Tribunal has not renewed their names and no certificateissued. As a result, they have been put to great hardship and theyare not able to practice.13.Admittedly, when there is no interim order granted by thisCourt in respect of the constitution of the Registration Tribunal andadmittedly when the Registration Tribunal has already prepared theregister, there would not have been any impediment for the Governmentof Puducherry to constitute the State Dental Council as it ismandatory as per law. The delay in this regard cannot be appreciated.In a welfare State, delay of more than 30 years is surely deplorable.It is high time for the Government atleast now to expedite theprocess and to constitute the Council without any delay.14.Until such Council is constituted, it is for the RegistrationTribunal to entertain the applications submitted by the members ofthe petitioner Association for the purpose of renewal and to issuerenewal certificates to them if they satisfy the other legalrequirements.15.In view of all the above, the writ petition is allowed in thefollowing terms:-(i)The Government of Puducherry is directed to constitute aState Dental Council as required under Section 21 of the Actpreferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)Until such State Dental Council is constituted, thepetitioners are at liberty to make applications before theRegistration Tribunal. If any such applications are made, theRegistration Tribunal is directed to consider and renew theregistration if they satisfy the other legal requirements and issueappropriate certificates within a period of 30 days from the date ofsubmission of such applications for renewal. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.jbmTo1.The Secretary,Government of India,Department of Health,Ministry of Health,New Delhi.2.The Secretary (Health),Government of Pondicherry,Pondicherry.3.The Home Secretary,Government of Tamil Nadu,Fort St. George, Chennai.4.The Director General of Police,Tamil Nadu,Chennai.+ 1 CC to Mr.V.Ravi,(ACGSC)(Customs),SR.18168+ 1 CC to Senior Government Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry.SR.18179W.P.No.2327 of 2009KGK(CO)EM/28.4