IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11083 of 2010 ======================================================= Tauqeer Saifi, S/o Late S.M. Zaheer Alam, R/o Mohalla - Mahuwa, P.S. - Mahuwa, Distt - Vaishali …………………………… Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Under Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Dental Education Section), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 3. The Dental Council of India through its Secretary, Kotla Road, New Delhi 4. The President , Dental Council of India, Kotla Road, New Delhi 5. The Vice President, Dental Council of India, Kotla Road, New Delhi 6. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Old Secretariat, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna ………………. Respondents. ================================================ Appearance: For the petitioner: Mr Ashok Kumar Choudhary and Mr Pratap Sharma, Advocates. For the D.C.I. (Respondents 3 to 5): Mr S.D. Sanjay and Mr Akash Chaturvedi, Advocates. For the respondents 1 & 2: Mr Shiv Kumar, C.G.C. For the Respondent No.6: Mr M.K. Singh, G.P. XII. =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 3. 26.08.2010. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been brought in Public Interest by one Tauqeer Saifi, a resident of Mahuwa, District – Vaishali. The petitioner claims to be a public spirited person. He has made allegations against the working of Mithila Minority Dental College and Hospital, Darbhanga and B.R. Ambedkar Dental College, Patna and the inaction of the Dental Council of India and its President in not taking action against the said Mithila Minority Dentala College and Hospital and B.R. Ambedkar Dental College, Patna. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the aforesaid two Dental Colleges neither have basic facility for dental education nor adequate number of teachers, etc. Though these facts are known to the Dental Council of India, but the President, Dental Council of India has avoided to take any action against the said colleges for extraneous reasons. Learned Advocate Mr S.D. Sanjay has appeared on behalf of the Dental Council of India and its Office Bearers. He has submitted that the present petition is not filed in good faith. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a member of the Governing Body of Dr. S.M. Naqui Imam Dental College & Hospital, Bahera, District – Darbhanga. The Dental Council of India has proposed action for mismanagement of the said Dr. S.M. Naqui Imam Dental College & Hospital. A criminal complaint has also been filed. In the said criminal case, the present petitioner is arraigned as one of the accused. In the submission of Mr Sanjay, a petition in Public Interest at 3 the hand of the present petitioner, who himself is tainted, shall not be entertained. Learned Advocate Mr Ashok Kumar Choudhary, appearing for the petitioner, has disputed the fact that the petitioner is a member of the Governing Body of the aforesaid Dr. S.M. Naqui Imam Dental College & Hospital. In support of his submission, Mr Sanjay has produced copy of the electorate of Gram Panchayat – Basuham, Block – Benipur, District – Darbhanga and copy of the Memorandum of “Rauf Muslim Jamia”, a registered society, which runs and manages the aforesaid Dr. S.M. Naqui Imam Dental College & Hospital. Let the copies of the documents be maintained on the record. We have noticed that the State has taken note of the mismanagement of the aforesaid two Dental Colleges. The matter has been entrusted to the State Vigilance Department. Once the Vigilance Department is seized of the investigation, this Court need not interfere in the name of Public Interest. The petitioner has claimed to be a public spirited person, though his claim may be true, he has not disclosed the factum of his being a part of the Governing Body of the aforesaid Dr. S.M. Naqui Imam Dental College & Hospital. He has also not disclosed the factum of criminal complaint lodged against him and that he has not answered the summons of the criminal court. In our opinion, therefore also, the petition at the hand of the present petitioner need not be entertained. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine. Dilip ( R. M. Doshit, CJ) ( Jyoti Saran, J)