Karnataka High Court
Indian Dental Association, By Its ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), By Its Secretary ... on 1 October, 2003
Equivalent citations: ILR2003KAR4564, 2004(1)KARLJ282
Author: N. Kumar
Bench: N. Kumar
ORDER Kumar, J.
1. The point that arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions is:
"Whether a "deemed University" under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 falls within the phrase "University established by law" used in Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948".
2. The brief facts leading to these Writ Petitions are as under:
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Act No. 3 of 1956) (hereinafter for short referred as "UGC Act"), the Central Government has declared the fourth respondent as deemed to be a University for the purposes of the UGC Act. The fourth respondent is running five colleges out of which two colleges of Dental Surgery which are situated at Manipal and Mangalore. The fifth respondent is the Professor Head of the Department and Dean in the College of Dental Surgery, Mangalore, belonging to the fourth respondent.
3. Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to short as 'the Act') which is a pre-constitutional enactment was passed to regulate the profession of dentistry and for constituting Dental Council in the Country. 5th respondent was a member of the Council elected by the members of the fourth respondent and was representing in the Dental Council the fourth respondent. In pursuance of an order passed by the Kerala High Court elections were conducted for the Dental Council of India. The elections to the Dental Council was held on 14.07.2003. The fifth respondent contested elections from the constituency under Section 3(c) of the Act and lost the election. Thereafter he was elected from the constituency of Section 3(d) of the Act. It is that election of the fifth respondent as representing fourth respondent is challenged in these Writ Petitions. The petitioners seek a declaration that the Deemed Universities under the UGC Act including the fourth respondent are not entitled to be included as constituencies under Section 3(d) of the Act and such inclusion is null and void and consequently a declaration that the election of the fifth respondent to the Dental Council of India from the fourth respondent pursuant to the election held on 14.07.2003 is null and void and for other consequential reliefs.
4. Sri R. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that though the fourth respondent is a deemed University under Section 3 of the UGC Act it is not an University established by law and therefore 5th respondent could not have contested the election from the constituency as contained in Section 3(d) of the Act. The inclusion of the fourth respondent in the constituency under Section 3(d) of the Act by respondents 2 and 3 is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of DENTAL COUNCIL OF INIDA AND ANR. v. HARI PRAKASH AND ORS. the inclusion of 4th respondent under Section 3(d) is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the election of the fifth respondent is also liable to be quashed.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, Sri Ashok Harnahalli, submitted, in the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court was considering the case whether an institution specially empowered by an act of parliament to confer or grant degrees could be included under the constituency under Section 3(d) of the Act and that case did not decide the question whether a deemed University would fall within the definition of the phrase "University established by law". In view of the deeming provision, by legal fiction the deemed University is also an university established by law and therefore inclusion of fourth respondent in a constituency under Section 3(d) of the Act cannot be found fault with.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 Sri G.K. Shevgoor submitted the fourth respondent is a deemed University under the UGC Act and it is having two Dental Colleges and in fact in the previous council 5th respondent was elected from the constituency under Section 3(d) of the Act and therefore there is no illegality in the election of the 5th respondent and including 4th respondent in the constituency under Section 3(d) of the Act. Therefore, he submits the Writ Petition is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. In order to understand the status of the fourth respondent it is necessary to have a look at the provisions of the UGC Act.
Section 2(f) of the UGC Act defines University as under:
"University" means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act. (underlining by me).
Section 3 of the UGC Act deals with application of Act to institutions for higher studies other than Universities which reads as under:
"Application of Act to institutions for higher studies other than Universities. - The Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a university for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a university within the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2" (underlining by me)
8. A reading of the definition of "University" under the UGC Act makes it clear it encompasses within its meaning a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be a recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under the Act. In this regard it is useful to remember the object with which the UGC Act came to be passed. It is passed with the intention of establishing a University Grants Commission as a corporate body which will inquire into the financial needs of Universities and allocate and disburse grants to Universities for any general or specified purpose. The Commission will also have the power to recommend to any University the measures necessary for the reform and improvement of University education and to advise the University concerned upon the action to be taken for the purpose of implementing such recommendation. The Commission will act as an expert body to advise the Central Government on problems connected with the coordination of facilities and maintenance of standards in Universities the commission, in consultation with the University concerned, will also have the power to cause an inspection or inquiry to be made of any University established by law in India and to advise the University on any matter which has been the subject of an inquiry or inspection. The Commission shall also advice, whenever such advise is sought, on the establishment of new Universities. While the provisions of the Act do not apply to institutions of higher education which are not Universities, power is vested in the Central Government to declare any institution for higher education to be a University for the purposes of this Act by issuing a notification in the official gazette. It is in this background if we look at the aforesaid definition of the word "University" in the said Act, it is clear the University Grants Commission has power to deal not only with the constituent colleges but also other colleges affiliated to the University. At the same time it was realized that the number of affiliated colleges being very large it would not be possible within the limited resources of the Commission to deal with all of them. Therefore, the Commission, was empowered to recognize such institutions as it thinks proper on the recommendation of the University concerned and in accordance with the regulations to be made in this behalf. Therefore, Section 3 empowers the Central Government on the advise of the Commission to declare by notification in the official Gazette that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a university within the meaning of Clause (f) of Section 2 for the purpose of the Act only and not for any other purpose. In this regard it is also necessary to have a look at Section 22 of the UGC Act which reads as under:
"22. Right to confer degrees:
(1) The right of conferring or granting degree shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an institution deemed to be a University under Section 3 or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
(2) Save as provided in Sub-section (1), no person or authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out as entitled to confer or grant, any degree.
(3) For the purposes of this section, 'degree' means any such degree as may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette."
9. A reading of the aforesaid Section makes it very clear that right of conferring or granting degrees by virtue of this provision has been conferred on three types of institutions: (a) A University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act; (b) A University deemed to be a University under Section 3; (c) An institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Therefore, this Section maintains the distinction between a University established by law and a deemed University under Section 3.
10. Further Section 23 of the UGC Act makes the intention of the legislature very clear which reads as under:
"23. Prohibition of the use of the word "University" in certain cases.- No institution, whether a corporate body or not, other than a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act shall be entitled to have the word "University" associated with its name in any manner whatsoever:
Provided that nothing in this section shall, for a period of two years from the commencement of this Act, apply to an institution which immediately before such commencement had the word "University" associated with its name."
11. Therefore, from the aforesaid Section it is very clear no institution other than a University established or incorporated by law, that means under a Central Act or a Provincial Act or a State Act shall be entitled to have the word "University" associated with its name in any manner whatsoever. In view of this categorical declaration, as a deemed University is not a University established or incorporated under any of those laws, it is totally debarred from using the word "University" in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, even though Section 3 of the UGC Act declares any institution for higher education shall be deemed to be a University for the purpose of this Act, Section 23 makes it very clear that such an institution shall not use the word "University" in its name. Though by virtue of Section 3 any institutions imparting higher education could be declared as a deemed University in accordance with Section 3 of the Act such an institution is not recognized under the Act itself as a University established by law.
12. It is also in that context it is necessary to see the meaning of the word deemed. In the well-known case of EAST END DWELLINGS CO. LIMITED v. FINSBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL, 1952 AC 109 Lord Asquith while dealing with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 observed:
"If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative, state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs."
The Supreme Court affirming the said position in the case of STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. AROORAN SUGARS LIMITED has held as under:
"11. The role of a provision in a statute creating legal fiction is by now well settled. When a statute creates legal fiction saying that something shall be deemed to have been done which in fact and truth has not been done, the Court has to examine and ascertain as to for what purpose and between what persons such a statutory fiction is to be resorted to. Thereafter Courts have to give full effect to such a statutory fiction and it has to be carried to its logical conclusion."
13. Therefore, a "deemed University" is admittedly in fact and truth not a University. It is deemed University for the purpose of the Act which confers such status. Wherever the word "University" has been used under the said Act we should treat this deemed University as a University. When the very same Act which confers the status of a deemed University on an institution categorically states that no institution other than a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial or a State Act shall be entitled to have the word "University" associated with its name in any manner whatsoever then the said intention of the legislature has to be given full effect. In other words even though that Act declares a particular institution as a University the said Act further makes it very clear that deemed University cannot use the word "University" in its name. When the Act uses the word "University established by law", when the legal fiction declares an institution only as a "University" it cannot be stretched to include a University established by law. They are not synonymous.
14. It is in that context it is necessary to look at Section 3 of the Act which reads as under:
"Constitution and composition of Council.- The Central Government shall, as soon as may be, constitute a Council consisting of the following members, namely:
(a) one registered dentist possessing a recognized dental qualification elected by the dentists registered in Part A of each State register;
(b) one member elected from amongst themselves by the members of the Medical Council of India;
(c) not more than four members elected from among themselves, by -
a. Principals, Deans, Directors and Vice-principals of dental colleges in the States training students for recognized dental qualifications:
Provided that not more than one member shall be elected from the same dental college;
b. Heads of dental wings of medical colleges in the States training students for recognized dental qualifications;
(d) one member from each University established by law in the States which grants a recognized dental qualification, to be elected by the members of the Senate of the University, or in case the University has no Senate, by the members of the Court, from amongst the members of the Dental Faculty of the University or in case the University has no Dental Faculty, from amongst the members of the Medical Faculty thereof;
(e) one member to represent each State nominated by the Government of each such State from among persons registered either in a medical register or a dental register of the State.
Explanation - In this clause, "State" does not include a Union territory;
(f) six members nominated by the Central Government, of whom at least one shall be a registered dentist possessing a recognized dental qualification and practicing or holding an appointment in an institution for the training of dentists in a Union territory, and at least two shall be dentists registered in Part B of a State register;
(g) the Director General of Health Services, ex Officio;
Provided that pending the preparation of registers the State Governments may nominate to the first Council members referred to in parts (a) and (e) and the Central Government members referred to in part (f) out of persons who are eligible for registration in the respective registers and such persons shall hold office for such period as the State or Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify."
15. A reading of Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that the Council to be constituted under the Act should be broadly a representative one where interest of every section who are involved in the profession of Dentistry should have a say in the matter. In fact the Council constituted under the Dentist Act has been vested with the power of maintaining standards in dental education throughout the country. Therefore, ultimately it is the Council which decides the nature of dental education to be imparted in the various institutions in the country.
16. From the aforesaid Section it is clear that Section 3(c) provides for four members elected from among themselves by principals, Deans, Directors and Vice-Principals of Dental Colleges in the States training students for recognized dental qualification and heads of dental wings of medical colleges in the States training students for recognized dental qualifications.
17. Clause (d) of Section 3 of the Act specifically provides that one member from each University established by law in the States which grants a recognized dental qualification to be elected by the members of the Senate to the University or in the case the University has no Senate, by the members of the Court, from amongst the members of the Dental Faculty of the University or in case the University has no Dental Faculty, from amongst the members of the Medical Faculty thereof is to be a member of a Council.
18. The law with regard to construction and interpretation of statutes is well settled. The cardinal rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be construed according to the intention expressed in the Acts themselves. The object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of Parliament, but the intention of Parliament must be deduced from the language used, for it is well accepted that the beliefs and assumptions of those who frame Acts of Parliament cannot make the law. If the words of the statute are themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their ordinary and natural sense. Where the language of the Act is clear and explicit, we must give effect, to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legislature. Where the language is plain and admits of but one meaning, the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. The decision in a case calls for a full and fair application of particular statutory language to particular facts as found. It is a corollary to the general rule of literal construction that nothing is to be added to or taken from a statute unless there are adequate grounds to justify the inference that the legislature intended something which it omitted to express. A construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected.
19. In fact, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider this aspect in the case of DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANR. v. HARI PRAKASH AND ORS. (Supra) wherein it was called upon to decide whether All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) which is established by Section 3 of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 is a University established by law under Section 3(d) of the Dentist Act. In that case a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court had held the doctrine of reading down needs to be applied to interpret Section 3(d) of the Act to treat AIIMS as a deemed University because though not technically established as a University, it apparently has, for the purpose of the Act, all the trappings of a University, and to equate the Academic Committee of AIIMS with the Senate of a University and the Governing Body as the Court of the University for the purpose of Section 3(d) of the Act. Disagreeing with the said reasoning of the Delhi High Court, Supreme Court held has under:
"6.1. The fact that there are three kinds of authorities empowered to grant degrees or diplomas is too well known in the educational field and is legislatively taken note of as aforesaid. Thus it is clear that there are various institutions in India other Universities which are empowered to confer or grant degrees and diplomas and AIIMS is one such institution. Therefore, it cannot be said that the mere fact of being empowered under the AIIMS Act to confer degrees or diplomas would convert it into a University established by law.
7. The intention of the legislature if primarily to be gathered from the language used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. When the words used are not ambiguous, literal meaning has to be applied, which is the golden rule of interpretation.
8. To interpret the meaning of the expression "University" the High Court proceeded to examine various dictionaries. That exercise could not have been undertaken by the High Court in view of the fact that the expression used in Section 3(d) of the Act is a "University established by law". The expression used is not just a "University" but "University established by law" and one expression "University" cannot be divorced from the following words "established by law". The entire expression "University established by law" constitutes one concept and is well known in law as indicated in Section 22 of the UGC Act. Hence, construction of the expression used in the Act with reference to dictionaries is not called for. Such a course will result in either omission of words in the Act such as "established by law" or to add different words which is not permissible in the language of the Act.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to a large number of decisions where the meaning of the expression used in an enactment has been given a wider meaning or even to cover a situation which could not have arisen when the law was enacted. But we are afraid, these principles cannot be applied in the present context, for Parliament is well aware of the situation of University, deemed University, and the institutions constituted and empowered under relevant enactments to confer degrees and the Act has been amended from time to time, to suit fresh needs as and when they arose. Thus, the Act has not remained static but is catching up with the times. Therefore, what is not included by the legislature cannot be undone by us by adopting the principle of purposive interpretation.
10. AIIMS is an institution, which is specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. As a result thereof, AIIMS may impart education in dentistry and also confer degrees or diplomas as provided under the AIIMS Act but that circumstance would not itself convert such an institution into a University established by law. If Parliament had intended that all categories of institutions which impart dental education will also be covered by Section 3(d) of the Act, it would not have provided that it is only a "University established by law" imparting dental education which could send its representative to the Council. The object of Section 3(d) of the Act being to provide representation to the University established by law, to give any other meaning would strain the meaning of the expression "University established by law" so as to treat any other institution empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees on a par with the University established by law for the purpose of representation on the Council. May be Parliament found that such an institution is to be merely covered by Section 3(c) of the Act so that the institution is merely treated as a dental college in a State training students for recognized dental qualifications from whom the principals, Deans, Directors and Vice-Principals or Head of the dental wing would also be elected, if found fit. Again, it is for Parliament to amend the law to give representation appropriately in the Council to AIIMS and the High Court ought not to have proceeded to consider other modes of interpretation when the language of the provision itself is absolutely clear. Therefore, we think the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The other question whether the Governing Body or the Academic Committee of AIIMS is equivalent to a Senate or a Court in a University does not arise for consideration in the view we have taken in the matter."
In this case the Supreme Court was dealing with an institution specially empowered by the Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. The law laid down in the said decision equally applies to a deemed University.
20. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court it is clear we cannot import into the Act the meaning of the word University defined under various Acts because the expression used in Section 3(d) of the Act is "University established by law". The expression used is not just a University but a University established by law. The expression "University" cannot be divorced from the following words "established by law and the entire expression "University established by law" constitutes one concept. The UGC Act only defines "University" and not "University established by law" but recognizes the difference. Section 3 of the UGC Act only confers power on the Commission to recognize an institution as a University for the purposes of the Act, that recognition is only as a "University" and not as a "University established by law". Section 22 of the UGC Act maintains a distinction between a University established by law, a deemed University and an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Section 23 of the UGC Act categorically states that no institutions other than a University established by law shall be entitled to have the word "University" associated with its name in any manner whatsoever there by meaning a deemed University cannot use the word "University" in its name. Though the Act is a pre-constitutional enactment it has been amended several times after Constitution came into force. If the Parliament did not choose to amend the law as contained in Section 3(d) of the Act, the Courts cannot adopt the purposive interpretation and attribute a meaning to the phrase "University established by law" which the legislature did not intend to attribute. When the language used in the Section is not ambiguous and when literal meaning is to be applied which is the golden rule of interpretation, we cannot ignore the intention of the legislature. Not only the intention of the legislature has to be gathered from the language used in the statute, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. Therefore, the Parliament by not amending Section 3(d) has made their intention very clear. The language used in Section 3(d) is plain and it conveys the intention of the legislature in unmistakable terms, i.e. only University established by law which is competent to send a representative to the Council under Section 3(d) of the Act whereas deemed University can always send their representative under Clause 3(c) of the Act. Therefore, there is no scope whatsoever for construing the word 'University established by law' which is used in Section 3(d) to include a deemed University under Section 3 of the UGC Act. But in spite of several amendments brought to the Act, if the phrase "established by law" in Section 3(d) is retained as it is and not amended it is impermissible for the Courts to interpret the word "University" de horse the words "established by law" used in the said Section so as to include all categories of institutions which impart dental education whether they are creatures of a statute or whether they are deemed to be University by virtue of Section 3 of the UGC Act or an institution specially empowered by an Act of Parliament to confer or grant degrees.
21. Whether it is an institution created by a statute as AIIMS or a deemed University under Section 3 of the UGC Act, the said institution is nothing but a college. In the case of AIIMS college is established whereas in the case of a deemed University a college which was earlier affiliated to the University has been recognized as a deemed University under the UGC Act. Therefore, a representation to colleges is provided for under subsection (c) of Section 3. The legislature did not feel it proper to amend Section 3(d) to include such institutions. It is also to be remembered number of colleges are affiliated to a University whereas in the case of an institution established by law or an institution which has been conferred with the status of a deemed University such numbers are missing. It may be one, two or three. It would be in the nature of a branch of a primary college. Therefore, to equate such institution as a University established by law won't be proper. Probably it is because of this though an institution is conferred with the recognition as a deemed University under Section 3 of the UGC Act, the Parliament in its wisdom thought it fit to introduce Section 23 of the UGC Act making its intent very clear and debarring any institution other than a University established or incorporated by law from using the word University in its name.
22. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the fourth respondent was an Institution which was imparting higher education and had an excellent track record. It was running two dental colleges and two medical colleges and a nursing college. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the UGC Act, the Central Government on the advice of the Commission has declared the fourth respondent as a deemed University for the purposes of the UGC Act. The fifth respondent is the Principal of one such college. He has been the Dean of the college of Dental Surgery at Mangalore. He in fact contested for the Council membership from the constituency under Clause 3(c) of the Act. He lost the election. It is thereafter he has been elected from the fourth respondent institution under Section 3(d) of the Act. The fourth respondent is not a University established by law and is only a deemed University for the purpose of the UGC Act, they had no right to send any representative of their's to the Council. If that is so the fifth respondent's election as a member of the Council from the fourth respondent is void ab initio and cannot be sustained.
23. However, in the statement of objections filed by respondents 4 and 5 they have raised several other contentions, one such contention being that the Writ Petitions are filed on 30.07.2003 whereas the affidavit filed in support of the said Writ Petitions is dated 29.07.2003 which is not in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Writ Rules and therefore the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. In reply it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners, that the petitioners are from Kerala. The Writ Petitions were prepared at Kerala and the affidavit was sworn to at Kottayam in Kerala on 29.07.2003 and the papers were sent to Bangalore. As the Writ Petitions could not be filed on the very same day and it was filed on the very next day, putting that day's date, it cannot be said that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. In view of the explanation offered by the petitioners for the variations in the dates in the Writ Petitions and the affidavit, which appears to be just, on that score the Writ Petitions cannot be rejected.
24. The second contention was the first petitioner, Indian Dental Association, has not authorized its Secretary to file the Writ Petitions and in fact on the contrary they have prohibited any one from filing the Writ Petitions in the name of the Association and therefore the Writ Petitions filed are not maintainable. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner is the Central Kerala Branch of the Indian Dental Association, a registered association and the person who has represented the said association is admittedly the Secretary of the Association. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the said contention. Even otherwise no such infirmity is pointed out in so far as second petitioner is concerned who is entitled to file the Writ Petitions.
25. It is also relevant to point out at this juncture it is the petitioners herein who filed a Writ Petition before the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 1808/2003 complaining that no elections are conducted to the Dental Council of India after the expiry of the stipulated period and earlier elected persons are continuing without the authority and therefore they had sought for a direction for holding of fresh elections. In those proceedings the Dental Council of India undertook to conduct the elections and that is how the election in dispute was conducted. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioners in these Writ Petitions are total strangers who are unconnected, In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents either as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions or the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain these Writ Petitions.
26. Therefore, my answer to the question raised above is as under:
Though the fourth respondent is a deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 it does not fall within the phrase "University established by law" used in Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 and therefore they have no right to send their representative in the constituency carved out under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act to the Council.
27. Hence, I pass the following order:
Writ Petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute. The fourth respondent is not a University established under law for the purpose of Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 and they are not entitled to be included as a constituency under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 and their inclusion is null and void. Consequently, the election of the fifth respondent to the Dental Council of India from the fourth respondent pursuant to the elections held on 14.07.2003 is void ab initio and accordingly is hereby quashed.
Parties to bear their own costs.