PARAJI LAL GARGI Vs. REGISTRAR PUNJAB DENTAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been placed before us in pursuance of my order of reference dated 10-8-1965.

(2.) ON 27-1-1960, the Governor of Punjab appointed 1-5-1960 for the territories, which prior to 1-11-1956 were comprised of the Stale of Patiala and the East Punjab States Union, as the date on or before which applications for registration as dentists under Section 32 of the Dentists Act, 1948 accompanied by a fee of Rs. 20 were to be made to the Registration Tribunal constituted under the relevant notification dated 27-1-1960. The petitioner sent his application on 27-4-1960 which reached the Dentist Registration Tribunal, Ludhiana on 29-4-1960. The requisite fee of Rs. 20 was however, sent on 29-4-1960 and received by the addressee on 2-5-1960 because 1-5-1960 was a Sunday. The petitioner was required by means of a letter dated 28-11-1963 to appear before the Dentist Tribunal on 8-12-1963 which the petitioner did. He was, however, informed by the Registration Dental Council on 30-12-1963 that his application had been rejected because he did not fulfil the conditions for registration. In answer to another post-card from the petitioner dated, 23-1-1964, he was informed as per letter dated 3-2-1964 that the date fixed for the receipt of application forms and fee was 1-5-1900 and that though the petitioner's application had been received on 29-4-1960, his fee was received on 2-5-1960 This letter went on to say that under the Act a person should have been engaged in dentistry for five years before 1-5-1960 but according to the petitioner's declaration, he had been practising as a dentist only since before 1-11-1956. His application had, therefore, been rejected. On 17-2-1964 (3-2-1964 in the writ petition is wrong) the petitioner pointed out that the ground for late receipt of his fee was not quite correct and that in any case, the delay should be deemed to have been condoned as a result of his having been called for interview. He also pleaded that, in any event, he could be enrolled as a temporary registered dentist under Section 33 (2) of the Dentist Act. This prayer was, according to the writ petition, also declined by the authorities concerned, though the order declining relief has not been produced in this Court.

(3.) IN the present proceedings, the petitioner has concentrated his argument on the point that there being no separate forms for registration as a temporary registered dentist, and there being also no separate fee required for such registration, it was incumbent on the Tribunal concerned to register him as a temporary registered dentist, if a case for registration was made out The petitioner having declared that he had been practising as a dentist since 1-11-1956, and this declaration having not been disbelieved or controverted, he was entitled to such registration. In regard to the payment of the requisite fee, it is strenuously argued that the amount having actually been dispatched on 29-4-1960, merely because the post office delivered this amount on 2-5-1960, one day later, oh account of 1-5-1960, being a Sunday, the petitioner could not be considered to have committed any default in the payment of the requisite fee as required.