Pdm Dental College and Research Institute Vs Union of India and Another

P etitioner is aggrieved by the o rder of respondent – Union o f India dated 25.06.2025, approving the re c ommendations of the Denta l Council of I n dia, primarily on the ground t h at the impugned action violate s the principles of natural justice.

¶11

I t is urged that on the date fixed for hearing before the Union o f India, there w as a death in the family of the petitioner, as a result of which , none could a p pear and the request for adjour n ment was not entertained by th e authorities le a ding to passing of the order im p ugned. 3. T aking cognizance of such submissions, we passed th e following or d er on 02.09.2024:-

¶12

“ It is contended that on the dat e fixed, there was demise in th e f amily of the Chairman due to w hich appropriate representatio n

¶13

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.05 14:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶14

CWP-25928-2025 (O&M)

¶15

[2]

¶16

could not be made and an ex parte order dated 25.06.2025, has been passed which is impugned in this petition. It is, therefore, submitted that fresh opportunity of hearing ought to be extended to the petitioner.

¶17

Adjourned to 04.09.2025, in order to enable counsel for the UOI to obtain instructions.”

¶18

Learned counsel for the Union of India on the basis of instructions obtained submits that on the first date fixed in the matter, the petitioner sought a month’s adjournment, where after, the hearing was adjourned on a date which was after 30 days. Even on that date since none had appeared, therefore, the authorities had no option but to accept the recommendations and pass the order impugned.

¶19

Be that as it may, in the facts of the case, it is apparent that the non-appearance of the petitioner’s representative was for reasons beyond their control, as there was demise in the immediate family of the Chairman.

¶20

In such circumstances, without observing any further, we are of the view that a post decisional hearing be given to the petitioner and the order impugned in the present writ petition can be kept subject to such fresh order to be passed by the authorities.

¶21

In that view of the matter, we dispose of this writ petition with direction upon first respondent to consider and decide the matter afresh after affording opportunity of post decisional hearing to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of copy of this order. The order under challenge shall abide by the order to be passed by the first respondent. This order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as laying down any binding precedent.

¶22

RAJESH KUMAR 2025.09.05 14:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶23

CWP-25928-2025 (O&M)

¶24

[3]

¶25