SHAJL K. JOSEPH versus V. VLSWANATH & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 65 · Decided: 22-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 65 
SHAJl K. JOSEPH 
v. 
V. VlSWANATH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1629of2016) 
FEBRUARY)2, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Dentists Act, 1948 ~ s.5 r!w. Regulation 20 of Dental Council 
(Election) Regulations, 1952 - Election of member of Dental Council 
A 
B 
of India - Judicial interference with the process of election -
C 
Permissibility - Held: Judicial interference is not permissible once 
the process of election starts - The disputes with regard to election 
should be dealt with by the courts only after completion of the 
election - In the present case, High Court was not right in interfering 
with the process of election because the process of election had 
started and also because alternative statutory remedy was available 
D 
u!s.5 of the Act rlw. Regulation 20. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court was not right in interfering with 
the process of election especially when the process of election 
had started and more particularly when an alternative statutory 
remedy was available to Respondent No.I by way of referring 
the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of 
Section 5 of the Dentists Act, 1948 read with Regulation 20 of 
~ the Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952. Whenever the 
process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere 
with the process of election for the simple reason that if the 
process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no 
election would be completed without court's order. All the 
disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after 
completion of the election. [Para 14] [69-G-H; 70-B, DJ 
N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal 
Constituency, Almanack, Salem Dist. and others AIR 
1952 SC 64 : 1952 SCR 218; Nanhoo Mal and others 
v. Hira Mal and others 1976 (1) SCR 809 : 1976 (3) 
SCC 211; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri 
. 65 
E 
F 
G 
H 
66 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and 
another v. State of Maharashtra and others 2001 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 333: 2001 (8) SCC 509 - relied on. 
2. It would be open to Respondent No.1 to approach the 
Central Government for referring the dispute, if he thinks it 
B 
proper to do so. No issue with regard to limitation will be raised 
if Respondent no.1 initiates an action under Section 5 of the Act 
within four weeks from the date of the present judgment. [Para 
16] [70-F-G) 
c 
D 
Case Law Reference 
1952 SCR 218 
relied on. 
Para 7 
1976 (1) SCR 809 
relied on. 
Para 7 
2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 333 
n'lied on. 
Para7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JL'RISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1629 
of2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2011 of the High Court 
of Kerala in Writ Appeal No. 806of2011 
K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Dhananjaya 
Sud,Advs. with him for the Appellant. 
E 
Vinodh Kanna B., Purushottam Shanna, Jogy Scaria, Ms. Beena 
F 
Victor, Gaurav Sharma, Anil Soni, Prateek Bhatia, Advs. for the 
Respondents . 
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ANIL R. DAVE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
3. The issue involved in this appeal is with regard to election ofa 
member to the D~ntal Council oflndia under Section 3 (a) of the Dentists 
Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] and Dental Council 
G (Election) Regulations, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as 'the 
Regulations']. Respondent no. I herein wanted to contest the election, 
but as his name was not in the electoral roll in Part A of the register of 
dentists for the State, his nomination form had not been accepte~ by the 
Returning Officer, Respondent no.3 herein. In these circumstances, 
Respondent no. I preferred Writ Petition (C) No.4075 of 2011 before 
H · the High Court of Kera la at Emakularn challenging the validity of rejection 
SHAJI K. JOSEPH v. V. VJSWANATH [ANIL R. DAVE, J.] 
67 
of his nomination paper. The Learned Singe Judge of the High Court 
A 
vide judgment dated 23'' May, 201 I allowed Respondent no.l's Writ 
Petition by setting aside the order passed by the Returning Officer, 
rejecting nomination in respect of candidature of Re'spondent no. l and 
·directed the Returning Officer to conduct the e.lection afresh after 
including name. of Respondent no. l and to declare the result on the.basis 
of such election to be conducted afresh from the stage after submission 
of the nominations. 
4. Being aggrieved by the aforestated judgment del

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