( 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-constitutionai enactment was passed to regulate the profession of dentistry and for constituting Dental Council in the Country. Fifth 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 14-7-2003. 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 14-7-2003 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 a 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 India and another v Hari Prakash and Others, 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 Haranahalli, 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 a 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 that the fourth respondent is a deemed University under the UGC act and it is having two Dental Colleges and in fact in the previous