BY AD v. K.S.BHARATHAN

BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ - SC SRI.SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE – GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 2984/24 2 JUDGMENT The petitioners are stated to be Dentists and they allege that they have been issued with Exts.P1 to P4 Show-cause Notices by the 2nd respondent - Kerala Dental Council, asking them to explain why action against them should not be taken, for having violated the Dentist (Code of Ethics) Regulation, 2014. They say that they have preferred Ext.P5 explanation to this; but that, without considering the same, they have been now issued with Exts.P6 to P9 notices, asking them to appear before the Council for a personal hearing.

The petitioners assert that Exts.P6 to P9 are egregiously improper because, they clearly indicate that the imputations against them have already been pre-judged and found against them; and therefore, that a hearing will only be an empty formality. They say that they have already preferred Exts.P10 to P13 replies against the said notices and thus pray that they be set aside, as being illegal and unlawful.

Sri. Aadithyan S. Mannali – learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the 2nd respondent has a duty to offer an WPC 2984/24 3 appropriate opportunity of being heard to his clients, after considering Exts.P10 to P13; and that the refusal of the said Authority to do so, as evident from Exts.P6 to P9, renders the entire proceedings vitiated and illegal. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this Writ Petition be allowed.

Sri.N.Raghuraj – learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, argued that this Writ Petition is premature, because, as is admitted in the pleadings by the petitioners themselves, Exts.P6 to P9 offer them an opportunity of being heard, pursuant to Exts.P1 to P4 Show-cause Notices. They pointed out that, since the petitioners have already answered the Show-cause Notices through Ext.P5, it is baffling that they have chosen to approach this Court, seeking that they be heard, which opportunity has already been offered to them through Exts.P6 to P9.

Sri.N.Raghuraj, in fact, went forward one step, saying that the apprehension of the petitioners, that they will not be heard ‘dispassionately,’ is absolutely untenable because, if that was the intention, then Exts.P6 to P9 would not have been issued. He added WPC 2984/24 4 that every contention of the petitioners, including what are voiced in Exts.P10 to P13, will also be taken into account if they impel it during the hearing before the competent Authority.

I must say that the explanation afore offered by Sri.N.Raghuraj and the learned Government Pleader would certainly dissuade this Court from granting any further reliefs to the petitioners because, they do not require to harbour any apprehensions as voiced in this Writ Petition any further. I say so because, as rightly argued by Sri.N.Raghuraj, Exts.P1 to P4 are only Show-cause Notices, to which the petitioners have replied through Ext.P5; while Exts.P6 to P9 are Statutory notices asking them to appear before the competent Authority. When I say so, I am fully aware that the contention of Sri. Addithyan S. Mannali is that Exts.P6 to P9 contain certain references, to the effect that his clients have been found guilty.

I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioners because, Exts.P6 to P9 are only Statutory notices for hearing and cannot be construed to be a decision arrived at by the competent Authority. I WPC 2984/24 5 cannot presume that the said Authority will not hear the petitioners ‘dispassionately’, or that their contentions will not be taken into account, particularly because they appear to have addressed them subsequently through Exts.P10 to P13. In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition in the following manner: a) Any reference in Exts.P6 to P9 regarding the guilt of the petitioners can certainly be not final and only provisional, subject to the hearing to be afforded to them by the competent Authority. b) The competent Authority of the Dental Council will hear the petitioners appositely, adverting to Exts.P5, as also Exts.P10 to P13 and will issue appropriate orders, as per law without any avoidable delay. c) For an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I permit the petitioners to produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a complete set of this Writ Petition before the 2nd respondent – Registrar.