NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL TECHNOLOGY Vs. DENTAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) National Institute of Dental Technology (NIDT) filed the present writ petition challenging two communications dated 14-6-2003 and 3-7-2003 sent by the second respondent herein. The first communication was addressed to NIDT, Hyderabad requesting them to obtain prior permission of Dental Council of India before starting dental technician course in the petitioner's institution. In the second communication, the second respondent requested Doctors (Dentists) to visit NIDT, enquire into the matter and submit a report within a fortnight with regard to running of dental technician course by NIDT without permission from Dental Council of India. The petitioner impugnes these two communications on the ground that the course known as 'operation of ceramic oven technology' is a course, which does not require any recognition by respondents 1 and 2 and therefore it does not come within the purview of these two bodies.

(2.) NIDT started an institution in Kochi in Kerala. It has its branches at Kochi, Kottayam, Trissur, Kozikode, Palakkad, Kannoor and Kollam. In 2003, it has also established institutions in Coimbatore and Bangalore and started such institution in Hyderabad as well, offering instruction in Dental Ceramic Technician course so as to provide technical know-how in ceramic technology. The petitioner received the communication dated 14-6-2003 from the second respondent directing NIDT to obtain prior permission from Dental Council of India and that the request for registration of students will not be entertained by the second respondent. The petitioner sent a reply on 2-7-2003 informing the second respondent that NIDT does not require any permission from the Dental Council of India and that the students trained by NIDT would not seek any registration and recognition of the second respondent. However, second respondent by letter dated 3-7-2003 appointed Dr. K. Rajendra and Dr. B. Lakshmana Rao as Inspectors to investigate the matter. Assailing which, the writ petition is filed.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed a common counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that establishment of NIDT itself is violation of provisions of Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993 (for brevity, the Act) and that the petitioner has to obtain necessary permission to start dental technology course. NIDT started dental course without obtaining prior permission of Dental Council of India. The petitioner advertised the course mentioned with a caption "Job anywhere abroad", misleading the students/ parents, that a press release was issued cautioning the students and by letter dated 14-6-2003, the petitioner was requested to obtain permission from the Dental Council of India. The advertisement issued by NIDT is misleading as it is offering Dental Ceramic Technician Course, which requires prior permission from respondents 1 and 2. As per the Act, no one is allowed to start dental courses without obtaining prior permission from the first respondent and the students in approved institutions are to be taught by qualified staff as per syllabus prescribed therefor. The proprietor of NIDT is neither qualified Doctor nor obtained prior permission from the first respondent and therefore, the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Act.