DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA versus BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 635 · Decided: 12-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
   [2022] 12 S.C.R. 635
635
DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA
v.
BIYANI SHIKSHAN SAMITI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2912 of 2022)
APRIL 12, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Dentists Act, 1948 – ss. 10A & 20 – 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 – r. 6(2)(h) – Power to make
regulations – Permission for establishment of dental college was
denied to the respondent no.1 – Respondent no. 1 submitted fresh
application which was returned by the respondent no. 2 on the
grounds that the application was not in compliance with the amended
Regulation 6(2)(h) of the Regulations – Single Bench of the High
Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1
challenging the rejection order of its application – However, Division
Bench of High Court allowed the writ petition by striking down the
impugned notification dated 21 May, 2012 amending regulation
6(2)(h) and directed the respondent no. 2 to reconsider the
application of respondent no. 1 – The impugned notification was,
inter-alia, quashed on the ground that it is beyond the scope of the
powers of the Council to make delegated legislation as provided
under sub-section (7) of section 10A of the Act – Held: It is settled
that subordinate legislation may be questioned on the ground of
unreasonableness, such unreasonableness should not be in the sense
of not being reasonable, but should be in the sense that it is
manifestly arbitrary – In the instant case, the Division Bench of the
High Court has failed to take into consideration clause (g) of
subsection (7) of s. 10A of the Act – Whereas clauses (a) to (f) of
subsection (7) of s. 10A of the said Act deal with various factors,
clause (g) thereof, which can be said to be a residual clause, enables
the Council to take into consideration also any other factor as may
be prescribed – Conjoint reading of ss. 10A(7)(g) and 20(2)(fb) of
the Act would reveal that it is within the competence of the Council
to make Regulations prescribing any other conditions, which are
otherwise not found in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (7) of Section
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
10A of the said Act – Challenge to the same would be permissible
only on the ground of manifest arbitrariness – Respondent no.1
failed to discharge burden that impugned notification suffered from
manifest arbitrariness – Subordinate legislation.
Constitution of India – Art. 14 – 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 – r. 6(2)(h) – Whether the
impugned Notification dated 21 May, 2012 amending r. 6(2) (h)
was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? – Held: Tests of
arbitrary action which apply to executive actions do not necessarily
apply to delegated legislation – In order that delegated legislation
can be struck down, such legislation must be manifestly arbitrary;
a law which could not be reasonably expected to emanate from an
authority delegated with the lawmaking power – Colleges established
prior to the impugned Notification and the Colleges established/to
be established after the impugned Notification would form two
separate classes – The differential treatment for different classes
would not be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Factors
taken into consideration by the Council, while amending Regulation
6(2)(h) of the Regulations are relevant factors – The factors have a
nexus with the object sought to be achieved which is to provide
adequate teaching and training facilities to the students – Amended
Regulation 6(2)(h) has a direct nexus with the object to be achieved,
i.e., providing adequate teaching and training facilities to the
students and it is not violative of art. 14 of the Constitution.
Constitution of India – Art. 19 (1)(g) – 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 – r. 6(2)(h) – Whether
the impugned Notification dated 21 May, 2012 amending r. 6(2) (h)
was violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? – Right to establish
an educational institution can be regulated – Such regulatory
measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenance

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.