W.P. (C) No. 21095 of 2016. Case: Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | W.P. (C) No. 21095 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B. Sajeev Kumar and For Respondents: S. Kannan, Government Pleader and N. Raghuraj |
| Judges | S.P. Chaly, J. |
| Issue | Dentists Act, 1948 - Sections 2, 32, 46, 46A |
| Citation | 2017 (1) KLT 565 |
| Judgement Date | January 27, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
S.P. Chaly, J.
-
This Writ Petition is filed by a Dentist, to declare that he is entitled to practice as Dentist in Kerala by virtue of the registration under the Dentists Act, before the State Dental Council, Union Territory of Puducherry, in the year 2010, and seeking other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows: Petitioner is a registered Dentist within the meaning of the Dentists Act, 1948, and is running a Dental Clinic in the name and style 'S.V. Dental Clinic' at Tirur Road, Kuttipuram, Malappuram District in the State of Kerala. Petitioner initially registered his name with the Dentist Registration Tribunal in the Union Territory of Puducherry in the year 1982. The said Registration Tribunal was later replaced by State Dental Council, U.T. of Puducherry in the year 2010. Petitioner is issued with Ext. P2 Registration Certificate dated 09.08.2013, which is being renewed from time to time, as evident from Ext. P3, and valid till 31.12.2016.
-
The 3rd respondent has conducted an inspection in the petitioner's clinic on 14.06.2016, and has specifically instructed the petitioner that he shall not practice in Kerala, and since his registration is in Puducherry, he can only practice there. According to the petitioner, such a course of action was adopted by the 3rd respondent at the instigation of some other Dentists practicing in Kuttippuram. It is also understood by the petitioner that hasty steps are being taken to close down the Dental clinic of the petitioner. These are the circumstances persuaded the petitioner to approach this Court.
-
The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The thrust of the contention advanced by the 2nd respondent is that, even though petitioner is a registered Dentist in the U.T. of Puducherry, petitioner has not cared to transfer the registration as per S. 46A of the Dentists Act, 1948 to the Kerala Dental Council. The Chairman, Legal Cell, Indian Dental Association, Malappuram Branch had lodged Ext. R2(a) complaint before the 2nd respondent, alleging that the petitioner an unqualified person, running the clinic. On receipt of Ext. R2(a) complaint, 2nd respondent in its meeting held on 10.05.2016 resolved to obtain a report from the 3rd respondent in respect of the allegations made in the complaint, evident from Ext. R2(b). It was thereupon that the 3rd respondent was...
To continue reading
Request your trial