Dr. Krishna Prakash vs Union Of India & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

This Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2021, whereby learned Single Judge granted three weeks’ time to Dental Council of India

to file counter affidavit.

According to the appellant, he was entitled for an interim order and since such order was not passed on the said date, therefore, he has preferred

this Appeal.

In his Writ Petition, appellant had sought the following reliefs:-

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 13th October, 2020 passed by the Dental Council of India on

the subject of extension of membership of the petitioner.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to permit the petitioner to contest the election of Vice-

President to be held on 29th & 30th August, 2021 after reinstating him as a member of the Council on the panel of State of Uttarakhand.â€​

Dental Council of India had refused to accede to the extension of nomination of the appellant, made by the State Government, on the ground that it

was not as per the provisions contained in the Dentists Act, 1948. The decision taken by the Dental Council of India was communicated to the

petitioner vide letter dated 13.10.2020, which was challenged by him in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1508 of 2021. The second prayer made by the

appellant was to direct Dental Council of India to permit him to contest the election of Vice President, after re-instating him as a member of Council

on the panel of State of Uttarakhand.

Having regard to the final relief claimed in the Writ Petition, no direction could have been issued by the Writ Court to Dental Council of India to

permit the appellant to contest the election, after re-instating him as a member of the Council on the panel of State of Uttarkhand, as such a relief

would amount to final relief, which could not be granted at the interim stage.

Even otherwise also, this Appeal is not maintainable, in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, which

provides that an appeal shall lie to a Court from a judgment. The order impugned in this Appeal does not amount to judgment, therefore, we refuse to

entertain this Appeal.

Accordingly, the Special Appeal is dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.