IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.04.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Writ Petition No.2327 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 The 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 The Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to forthwith constitute the State Dental Council for the State of Pondicherry as per Section 21 of the Dentists Act 1948. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kalyana Sundaram For R.1 : Mr.V.Ravi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R.3 & 4 : Mrs.Malarvizhi Udayakumar, Special Government Pleader For R.2 : Mr.D.Murugesan, SC Government Pleader (P) O R D E R Non constitution of State Dental Council under the Dentists Act, 16 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act), even after several years of the adaptation of the said Act, for the Union Territory of Puducherry, is aimed as grievance in this writ petition wherein, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith constitute such a State Dental Council as required under Section 21 of the Act. 2.The petitioner is an Association of Dentists known as "The Pondicherry Dentists Association". The members of the petitioner Association are all qualified Dentists. They were registered as Dentists in the Union Territory of Puducherry by the Registration Tribunal as per Section 32 of the Act. But their names were not renewed and no renewal certificates were issued to them as required under Section 39 of the Act, since no State Dental Council has been constituted for Union Territory of Puducherry. 3.On an earlier occasion, the petitioner Association filed W.P.No.3304 of 1984, for a similar direction to the Government of Puducherry to forthwith constitute the State Dental Council. During the pendency of the said writ petition, it was brought to the notice of the Court that constitution of the State Dental Council could not be made since there were disputes pending before this Court in respect of the Registration Tribunal in W.P.No.8164 of 1984. Recording the same, this Court by order dated 06.08.1984 passed the following order:- "....At this juncture, I take note of the statement made by Mr.S.Govindasamy, learned Government Pleader for Pondicherry that the constitution of the State Dental Council may be resorted to after the disposal of the matter pending in this Court. As it is, I am not able to countenance the prayer as it stands projected by the members of the petitioner's Association in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed." 4.Another Association of Dentists known as "Indian Dental Association" had filed W.P.No.8164 of 1984 to quash the Gazette Notification published in the Gazatte of Pondicherry Part I Extrairdubart dated 22.06.1982 constituting Registration Tribunal by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the first respondent therein and for further direction to the first respondent to constitute fresh Registration Tribunal as contemplated under Section 32(1) of the Act. This Court by order dated 25.06.1992 dismissed the said writ petition. The Writ Appeal filed by the said Association in W.A.No.2066 of 1992 against the said order was also dismissed. 5.Thereafter, the petitioner Association filed another writ petition in W.P.No.7378 of 1998 contending that since the writ petition regarding the constitution of the Registration Tribunal has been dismissed by this Court, at least now the State Dental Council may be constituted forthwith. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 04.07.2006, it was represented by the learned Government Pleader, Puducherry that the Dental Council for Puducherry State had been constituted. Recording the said statement, the said writ petition was dismissed as infcrutuous. 6.But, as a matter of fact, no such State Dental Council was constituted for the Union Territory of Puducherry. Therefore, the petitioner Association has again come forward with the present writ petition with the same prayer. 7.The learned Senior Counsel/ Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents would submit that so far, no State Dental Council has been constituted and the statement made by him in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.7378 of 1998 was incorrect. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Government of Puducherry 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 writ petition, let me first analyse the scheme of the Act. Section 32 of the Act, speaks of first preparation of register of Dentists. According to the said provision, there shall be an Registration Tribunal which will examine every application received on or before the appointed date, and if it is satisfied that the applicant is qualified for registration, under Section 33, it shall direct the entry in register. Thus, the initial burden to prepare a register is with the Registration Tribunal. In the case on hand, such Registration Tribunal was constituted for the Union Territory of Puducherry which was challenged by the another Association in W.P.No.8164 of 1984. Since the said writ petition was pending, according to the Government of Puducherry, State Dental Council could not be constituted. The said writ petition was disposed of 25.06.1982 and writ appeal was also dismissed. 9.Admittedly, there has been no interim order granted by this Court in respect of the Constitution of the Registration Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has prepared the first Register of Dentists for 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 petitioner Association is that since there is no State Dental Council for Union Territory of Puduhcerry, they are not able to get their registration renewed as required under Section 39 of the Act. 11.At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to Section 21 of the Act, which mandates that every State shall constitute a State Dental Council. As soon as such a Council is constituted, the register of Dentists prepared by the Registration Tribunal shall be given to the custody of the State Dental Council as required under Section 32(6) of the Act. After the constitution of such Council, renewal shall be made only by the Council as per Section 39 of the Act. 12.A close analysis of the above provisions would make it manifestly clear that in case where no such Dental Council has been constituted as per Section 39 of the Act, the Registration Tribunal itself has got the power to renew and issue appropriate certificate. But in this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that though its members have been repeatedly approaching the Government, the Registration Tribunal has not renewed their names and no certificate issued. As a result, they have been put to great hardship and they are not able to practice. 13.Admittedly, when there is no interim order granted by this Court in respect of the constitution of the Registration Tribunal and admittedly when the Registration Tribunal has already prepared the register, there would not have been any impediment for the Government of Puducherry to constitute the State Dental Council as it is mandatory 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 the process and to constitute the Council without any delay. 14.Until such Council is constituted, it is for the Registration Tribunal to entertain the applications submitted by the members of the petitioner Association for the purpose of renewal and to issue renewal certificates to them if they satisfy the other legal requirements. 15.In view of all the above, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:- (i)The Government of Puducherry is directed to constitute a State Dental Council as required under Section 21 of the Act preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)Until such State Dental Council is constituted, the petitioners are at liberty to make applications before the Registration Tribunal. If any such applications are made, the Registration Tribunal is directed to consider and renew the registration if they satisfy the other legal requirements and issue appropriate certificates within a period of 30 days from the date of submission of such applications for renewal. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. jbm To 1.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.18179 W.P.No.2327 of 2009 KGK(CO) EM/28.4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/