Mamtaz Foundation Through Its Director v. Dental Council of India & Ors

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J SEPTEMBER 08, 2025 N.Khanna

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 % W.P.(C) 4941/2025 & CM APPL. 22676/2025 MAMTAZ FOUNDATION THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Murari Lal Sharma, Adv. versus DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Anum Hussain, Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Saurabh Kumar and Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Advs. for R-1. Mrs. Dr. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Ms. Anamika Thakur and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advs. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner which is a foundation and intends to set up a dental college in Assam, has challenged the provisions of Clause 6(2)(e) of the regulations known as Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "2006 Regulations") issued by Dental Council of India by notification dated 10.01.2006. 3. The petitioner further prays that a direction be issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the application for seeking approval to establish new Dental College & Ayurveda College respectively without insisting for NOC from State Government. 4. The thrust of the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner insofar as the prayer relating to the provisions of Regulation 6(2)(e) of 2006 Regulations is that Section 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948, which is in relation to permission for establishment of new dental college, new courses of study, etc., does not require any such NOC to be obtained from the State Government and further that the provisions of impugned regulation 6(2)(e) of 2006 Regulations are not enforceable for the reason that the Regulations, 2006 have not been placed before the Parliament in terms of the requirement of Section 20(4) of the Dentists Act, 1948. 5. Mr. Singhdev, Advocate representing the Dental Council of India has, however, vehemently opposed the prayers and has submitted that the arguments made by the petitioner are absolutely misconceived for the reason that Section 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948, mandates seeking permission of the Central Government in case any new Dental College is to established or any new course of study in Dental Sciences is intended to be conducted. He has drawn our attention to the said provision and has submitted that no such new Dental College or new course of study can be permitted except with the previous permission of the Central Government which is to be obtained in accordance with the provisions given in the Dentists Act, 1948, itself. 6. He further states that in terms of the requirement of sub-Section (4) of Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, the 2006 Regulations must have been placed before each House of the Parliament, and only thereafter, they have been notified, and thus, these Regulations are in vogue. Mr. Singhdev has also drawn our attention to an earlier order dated 17.03.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3235/2025 which was instituted by the petitioner foundation with identical prayers. He has stated that the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority seeking requisite permission under the Regulations. Paragraph 4 of the said order dated 17.03.2025 is extracted herein below: "4. On being pointed out that the petition appears to be pre-mature, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with the liberty to approach the appropriate authority seeking requisite permission under the Regulations and further that in case, the permissi