- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3430 OF 2009 Jyoti Tembhurne & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The Hon. Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. N. N. Bhadrashete, for the Petitioners. Mr. Vaibhav J. Mehta, for Respondent No.1. Mr. I. B. Sonawane & Abhay Parab, for Respondent No.2. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 and respondent No. 2 and the learned AGP for respondent No.3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6th February 2009 passed by the Central Government whereby the Election Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Dentist Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) came to be rejected. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that - 2 - grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was neither given opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order nor was called for hearing and the order came to be passed behind his back. It is further contended that since the Central Government did not give an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case, it is difficult for the petitioner to know as to whether the Central Government in fact has considered all the points and the grounds raised by the petitioner in the election petition, since the order is completely silent in this regard. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that since the order impugned is violative of principles of natural justice, it cannot be sustained. It is therefore, prayed that this is a fit case where the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the issue may be remanded back to the Central Government for reconsideration of the Election Petition afresh and the direction be given to decide the same by following principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the Central Government as well as other respondents have supported the impugned order. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the procedure stipulated in Clause 20 of the Dental Council (Election) Regulation 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Regulation) does not require that the petitioner should have been given hearing before - 3 - passing the order, which reads thus- “20. Procedure for setting aside election - (1) Procedure for the setting aside an election under section 5, the Central Government shall give an opportunity to all the parties concerned to show cause why the election should not be set aside. (2) A decision under section 5 may be given on the inquiry and report of any person appointed by the Central Government in that behalf.” 4. It is contended by the respondent that so far as principles of natural justice are concerned, they are required to be followed if the election is set aside under section 5 of the said Act as per the procedure stipulated. However, in the instant case since the election which was challenged by the petitioner by filing election petition under section 5 of the said Act was rejected by the Central Government, therefore, it was not necessary as per the procedure stipulated to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned was just and proper and is sustainable in law. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the procedure stipulated in Clause 20 of the said Regulation as well as section 5 of the Dentist Act, 1948 which reads thus- - 4 - “5. Mode of elections – Elections under this Chapter shall be conducted in the prescribed manner, and where any dispute arises regarding any such election, it shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision shall be final.” 6. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the petitioner filed the election petition under section 5 of the said Act which was referred to the Central Government. It is also not in dispute that the Central Government was required to follow the procedure stipulated in Clause 20 of the said Regulation which in no uncertain terms demonstrate that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed only in case the election is set aside and not otherwise. In the instant case since the election petition was dismissed, obviously the election which was subject matter of challenge was not affected, therefore, giving of an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was not required, in view of the scheme of the provisions of Clause 20 of the Regulation. . For the reasons stated hereinabove, petition suffers from lack of merits. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- [D. D. SINHA, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.]