Karnataka High Court
Dr Sharath Chandra vs The Karnataka State Dental Council on 22 February, 2010
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
_ 1 _
IN TEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY or FEBRUARY, 2010
PRESENT
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTzcE v.GoP.AL.A GOWDA{r'».
AND
THE HO1\"BLE MRJUSTICE B.S. V "2
WRIT APPEAL Nos.246-256 ()E"2e2o'11[GMa--i§}Es}V:VVV'
In W.A.No.246--247/2010 Z in it A. '
BETWEEN:
1. Dr.Sharath Chandra,
S/0.1ate S.M.Srikanta;
Aged 46..ye_ai?s1.".,
Sector A, 12AA.Mai*-3' Rea-:1'. _
New TOWfl,'Y€1hC1i1k&,_B'a1jlgSL10]'€ -- 27.
2. Dr.Nancia--:1 Rae, A V
S/0 D_r.K.Mahaba1';.Rao_, "
_ Agefi :V 30 yearsAA,.__Dept. 3f Cons & Endo,
. V. _ K1-isi'1n_ade:raraya Cniievge of Dental Sciences
, '1w'e1ahanka..< Bangalore. APPELLANTS
[3-Jr_S'ri C.IVi:C.iian'drashekar, Adv.)
C The Kamiatalia State Dental Council,
_ N023. Appajappa Agrahara.
Main. Chamarajpet,
Bangalore ---- 18, Rep. by its Chairman.
V V it The Returning Officer,
The Karnataka State Dental Council
And Chief Administrative Officer
(Medical Education].
Malkan's Dental Surgery,
No.21, 1st Floor, S.N.S.Pla_za,
Kurnara Park East,
Bangalore -- O}.
6. Dr.Neha Shah,
D/0 Suresh Shah,
Age: 30 years, occ: Dentist,
R/o No.105, 194 Floor,
Kumara park, Bangalore -- 01.
7. Dr.Megha N.Shah,
D / o Narendra lVI.Shah,
Age: 30 years, Occ: Dentist, ._
R/0.560, 15" Floor, 10"' C Main-.Road,K_ 2
61h Block, Rajajinagar, I%3anga1o17egé"'-5 10.
8. Dr.Girish Girddar. . _
S/o Bhimappa Girddar--,._ _ , . ,
Age: 32 years, Occ: ProfeSso'1',*...*
Dept. of Oral Surgery, '
Bangalore -- A A
9. Dr.Sow1riya R,' " "
D/0 Rangappae. A . e
Age; .32 years, Occ: Dentist,
, SoWjrI1ya~ Dental Clinic.,
' ._ B."B.Rc1iad, 'Yeelahanka,
. Bangalore -.--t 64. APPELLANTS
[By_Sri_S.lVl.Ch_antirashekar, Adv.)
A _AN:):"'~ '
The Karnataka State Dental Council,
. No.23, Appajappa Agrahara,
._}.5' Main, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore -- 18, Rep. by its Chairman.
A The Returning Officer.
The Karnataka State Dental Council
And Chief Administrative Officer
[Medical Education),
Anand Rao Circle,
Bangalore -- 09.
3. f.)r.Bharath Shetty,
Prasidhi Dental Speciality Clinic,
15' Floor, Vishal Complex,
Bangalore.
4. Dr.Rajk;uma Alle {oi'tho),
Sharan Dental Care,
No.42--43, Mahakavi Kuvempu Road."
Near Devaiah Park,
Srirampuram, '
Bangalore -- 2 1. V
{By Sri A.Nagarajappa, Adv. for 1* V
Sri A.Nagarajappa 81 Assts., for R~ lg
Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, GA... for B42; * _
Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, S1_C"3ur;-_sel;f0r"
Sri Dayanand S.Pat1l, Adv. for 'Ci-R3.;'Rs &gRf7" --.
Sri Ravivarrna Kiimar, Sr.A.Counsel_ ,r ' Q =
Sri Kamraj, Adv, for R-4, V g. '
Sri K.Chandrakantfi.a Adv.
_ §i==¢==k
Writ -ilflpvpeals are filed under Section 4 of the
11 l'Karnataka---.High C0u.rt"A'ct praying to set aside the order passed
in the .g Petition NOS.288~289/2010 and W.P.NOS.357--
365/2010-»rjated__0G..01.2010.
fii1es¢.'.L4;pp'e:a1s coming on for Preliminary Hearing this
1 it day, B'.-S.Patii;v delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
(firder passed by the learned Single Judge on 01.01.2010 "dj'»in._..€vnt Petition Nos.357--365/10 c/W Writ Petition. Nos.285-- 10 " " "l289/ 10 is challenged in these appeals. %/ _. 3 ._.
2. In W.Ps.357--365/ 10, the appellants herein challenged the Notification dated 24.12.2009 issued by the Returning Officer notifying the calendar of events for conducting the elections to the Governing Council of the Karnataka State Dental' C?ou.ncil and also to elect one Member to the Dental Councilgjf in the meanwhile elections were conducted *p:0tsts2ii;._ question, some of the appellants herein pprefegrred of writ petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.285-:289/ 120,. 'Both theseV'batcl}1es~nf"V L' writ petitions have been clubbecifhteard togethe;*V-land: disposed of by the common order, vvhich appeal.
3. Learned Single-».:Jludge:_.'lias"dismissed the writ petitions holding thafthe contelntionj:s"_.'tVurged by the Writ petitioners that they not have sufficient time to file their nominations as the to file the nomination was only 5 days and that ton 'Consisting 3 intervening general holidays thereby V .deprivi'ng vthenil of a fair opportunity to take part in the election cannot be accepted. Learned Single Judge has also that the petitioners had sufficient time to Contact the if Officer and file their nomination papers before 2' 28.12.2009 and as they did not do so their grievance cannot be entertained.
by __ 6 _ '
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. We find that the elections are held as per the Karnataka Dentists Rules, 1960 [for short, 'the Rules'). The relevant rules are in Chapter--II which pertain to the election.s to be conducted. They are framed as per Section 2l(a}"'&'['I;)'._'_of' Dentists Act, 1948 (Central Act No.16/l9é«8),..._,R:ulge of Rules provides that the Returning Officer '_g1'pp§mt-ea in the Karnataka Gazette and also any other thinks fit, the date, time and pl'aQé"i.for receipt riornination papers and their scI'1,1tiny,': Liespatclht._theuvotingHpapers to the electors, fdlatiefof and counting of votes. Sub~«rule (ll of Rule.6A:_Rjstate_sA"'that every nomination paper shall be signed by tvvo_electors':as"proposer and seconder and sent by 'shpost 'orC'otherwise sovlasfvto reach the Returning Officer on or fbefore by him which shall be not less than four weelisgbeforef Fldate appointed for the poll. ~ In instant case, as could be seen from the notification both in the Kamataka Gazette and the daily ,.._j':;neWspaper 'Hindu' on 24.12.2009, the date and time of issue of . Pnomination paper and other relevant dates are stipulated as under:
W. njn "-- Date and time of issuing of nomination papers is from 24.12.2009 -- 10 am.
- Last date for receiving nomination papers 28.12.2009 at 3.00 p.m. & Scrutiny after_4§V,0'0 _
-- Last date and time for xavitiexirawall ofnomiiiatioiis 0 04.01.10 an 3.00 p.m. & at.:45.(:)0.T;3.I'I'i... 'pr1b1_ica;t:.g:1;-er' final list of contestants: _4
-- Despatch of Ballot papersaozn 1 1.01"; 0
-- Date of Poll 1C?_;till.
- Counting of votes-'28h.0'l . 10,' and declaration of results ;:;eer co-mple'tion'of 'counting of votes. Nominations_papers'~can_bc_ obtained from Returning Officer, Karnataka_ State Dentai».Co'uncil 8: Chief Administrative Officer, Directorate of Medical' Education, Bangalore, Anandarao Circle, Bangalore' +560 009.-"
. __VI1 to our notice that on 04.01.2010, the results of' ._th.¢ .0 eleefiofl:5""" have been announced as. out of five _nomiri<atio.i*is -submitted to the four posts of Members of the 5A"'----Governingv--~Council, one person withdrew his nomination which iltespulted in the remaining four being declared unopposed. As t 'regards the Membership to the Dental Council of India, only one A 0' r " nomination was filed and hence the said candidate was declared elected unopposed on the same day (04.01.2010). jg.
is 8 2
7. Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has canvassed two contentions. The first contention is that the period of five days given for submission of nomination stipulating that the same shall be filed; 24.12.2009 to 28.12.2093 is unreasonable as it reasonable opportunity to the Membersgpto ta1§.e"' to contest and file their nomination. 'He jsubmi'tS_ that asfitoteijs are spread over throughout the State such lshortuis tlotallypi V unreasonable. His second contention,is that even} five days given do not constitute clear fivey'_idays~,.0y as there were three intervening holidays. the Returning Officer ought' the last date for receiving nomination on a ought to have given reasonable period._%:e>lcl11dingl"theholiday for filing nomination papers. ln IA'~.this«corinvection;'--..he draws our attention to Section 30{a) of the Representatio.n 'i5eople Act, 1951.
.8. liearned Government Advocate, the learned Senior "Vv'v'u":C'-:l3llI71S§1 appearing for the respondents Sri Jayakumar S.Patil .l_jan'dS1'iAlRavivamia Kumar, strongly refute the contentions urged
-:l_4:lby"lthe Counsel for the appellants and submit that since elections have already been conducted and the result is 1%.
declared, it is not permissible for the appellants to agitate their grievance invoking writ jurisdiction.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the ,;$1~:. careful perusal of the materials on record, we 'is, no stipulation in the rule namely the[:Karn:ataka 1960 as to the number of daysgnotice given--'V--LGr days opportunity to be providedllvlforlirfiling 'i-mfimaufms by the intending contestants. ishtlhat the date fixed shall not be less than four ivéeics to the date of the poll. it is not theLfcase:__of the appellants that there is violatioifof r.ule.'_'fra_med,l or any other provisions of these rules. pp On tl1e.'ct;her'h:an.d'; his contention is that the rule is silent .eregardirig'tiine"'gap: to be given between the date of it llnotificationaandp the lastlldate of receipt of nomination papers. t1t:1e_pbabSeI:ice of any such stipulation, it is not for this Courtypto statetpin the facts and circumstances of the case, that period five days is not sufficient for the purpose of filing i"'1'Cv'}."1(1v/Ii-.1"1'.:aTii()I1S. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, ' ,.._flpeti1tioners had sufficient time to take steps to file nomination if . Lfthey were desirous of contesting for the elections. In paragraph- 11 of the order, the learned Single Judge has clearly observed %, _ lg _ that the petitioners had sufficient time to Contact the Returning Officer and obtain nomination papers and file the same on or before the last date fixed viz., 28.12.2009.
11. As regards the second contention urged by the=l'earned Counsel for the appellants, it has to be noticed thfclt there is no provision made for excluding the holidays orstatingll "
that the nominations shall not be lrece'ived Analogy drawn by the learned tC_ounsell'byl Vysectiont"
30{a) of the Representation of Peop_l:e"_y195..1' islnlot apposite to the facts and circumstances" of 't_he;_present"case as there is no such provision * in they 1'ules_' expressly framed in this regard regulatingll*th'e Conducting elections to the Governing Couificill. ' .Gn1y*.be"cause the nomination is required to 'Vibe submit.ted "duringlh'olidays, it cannot be assumed that such will be illegal or unreasonable. Therefore, we 'find no .su-lzsltance in both the contentions urged by the . ,_lle,arned Couinsel for the appellants. Chandrashekhar has further brought to our notice even the Dental Council has not been informed about the ~ _':.l1'10tii'1cation issued notifying the Calendar of events. He has drawn our attention to the statement of objections filed by the $6,-
lgp%sl~jnl JUDGE mil-
Dental Council in this regard. There is no requirement in law that the Dental Council should be notified about the date of election or it should be given any particular period of not_i_.ce. In the absence of such requirement, we do not find any snbstance in this contention as Well. We are also of the Vie'W; elections have been already conducted.._anc'{ the'i"lesiilt_sVV are declared, it is not for this Court to the the process by entertaining th_e'--~.4.conte:3tions the-it appellants.
Therefore, we do notvillfindcanjy in these appeals. Sd/-