Disposed

The Pondicherry Dentists v. the Government of Pondicherry

Madras HC16 Mar 2022WP/9683/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ under Article 226 challenging interference with dentists' practice due to alleged non-registration, the Court noted the subsequent constitution of the State Dental Council under the Dentists Act, 1948. The petitioner is directed to approach the Council for remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to approach the State Dental Council for remedies. Upon registration, respondents shall not interfere.

The Pondicherry Dentists Vs the Government of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.03.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

WP NO.9683 OF 2009 AND MP NO.1 OF 2009

¶6

The Pondicherry Dentists Association Rep. by its President Dr.Krishnan Unni No.111, Lal Bahadur Sastri Street, Pondicherry.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Government of Pondicherry Rep. by its Secretary (Health) Pondicherry.

¶10

The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Home Secretary Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶11

The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Chennai.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER:

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their men and subordinates from in anyway disturbing or interfering with peaceful practice of the members of the Petitioner Association as Dentists by running their clinics and Hospitals.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.Kasirajan for Ms.P.Indumathi

¶16

For Respondent-1: Mr.J.Kumaran Addl. Government Pleader (Pondy)

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

: Mr.M.Rajendran Additional Government Pleader

¶19

For Respondents 2 and 3

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is an Association of Dentists practising in Puducherry. Alleging that the Members of it's Association were prevented from carrying on their profession by the respondents on the pretext that they were not registered, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

2.It appears that when the writ petition was filed in the year 2009, the State Dental Council was not constituted by the first respondent Puducherry Government.

¶23

3.When the matter is taken up for final hearing today, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 04.08.2010, in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 21 of the Dentists Act, 1948, has constituted the State Dental Council and so many Dentists, who have registered with the Dentists Registration Tribunal have approached the State Dental Council and got themselves registered. The Dentists Registration Tribunal also handed over the Register of Dentists in Part-B to the State Dental Council. The Dentists, whoever registered themselves before the State Dental Council, carrying on their profession without any interference from any quarter.

¶24

4.It is noted that the present writ petition filed in 2009 is only for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in anyway disturbing or interfering with the peaceful practice of the Members of the Petitioner Association as Dentists by running their clinics and Hospitals. Now that in accordance with the Dentists Act, 1948, the State Dental Council has been constituted and it is always open to the Members of the petitioner / Association to register themselves as Medical Practitioners and carry on their business.

¶25

5.Considering the subsequent developments, the petitioner / Association is directed to approach the State Dental Council for their remedies. In the event the Members of the petitioner / Association, got registered with the State Dental Council, the respondents shall not interfere with the practice of the Members of the petitioner / Association as Dentists and running the clinics and hospitals. If the Members of the petitioner / Association have any grievance, they can very well approach the Appellate Authority and after exhausting all the alternative remedies available under the Act, they can approach this Court, if they still have any grievance.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶27

6.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

¶33

The Secretary (Health) Government of Pondicherry Pondicherry.

¶34

The Home Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai. 3. The Director General of Police Tamil Nadu Chennai. +1cc to Mr.Kasirajan, Advocate, S.R.No.17665 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.17899

¶35

WP NO.9683 OF 2009

¶36

BR(CO) PM/06/04/2022

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Pondicherry Dentists v. the Government of Pondicherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Pondicherry Dentists v. the Government of Pondicherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gobi Textiles Ltd., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. B

Vit University Vs Union of India

Master Adarsh Srinivasan Vs The Principal Secretary

Tiruchengode Nagara Kavarai Vs the Divisional Engineer

M/S. Amarjothi Spinning Mills Vs Tamilnadu Electricity

Mr.Rajaram, Vs the Special Officer