Point of Law: Fake dental clinic - Dental clinic will fall within the ambit of the Act of 2010 and the person has to have the requisite qualification and the petitioner dental clinic is admittedly registered under the provisions of the Act of 2010 and the person in charge has the requisite qualification.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. S. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and Ms. M. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and 4.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was running a Dental Clinic namely, M/s Hussain Dental Clinic at Chawk Bazar, Ward No. 12, P.O. Bilasipara which has been granted provisional registration under Section 15 of the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (for short the Act of 2010) on 20.11.2017 and thereafter it was extended from time to time and lastly on 24.12.2020 it was extended for another period.

3. Mr. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on 19.1.2022 the said provisional registration has been further extended for a period of 1 year from the date of its issue and in that regard he places before this Court a certificate of provisional registration dated 19.1.2022 which is kept on record and marked with the Letter ‘X’. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 had issued an order dated 24.11.2019 by virtue of which it was alleged that the petitioner is illegally running a fake Dental Clinic with fake registration in the name of M/s Hussain Dental Clinic at Chawk Bazar, Ward No. 12, Bilasipara and accordingly had directed the respondent No. 4 to seize all the documents of the said clinic and seal it and accordingly the said Dental Clinic was sealed on 29.10.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that at that relevant point of time when the impugned order was passed and the Dental Clinic of the petitioner was sealed one Dr. Abhijit Banerjee having a BDS decree was the person In-charge. Subsequent thereto one Dr. Mosaddique Mostafa Alom Ahmed had applied to be the person in charge of the Dental Clinic. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 had issued the impugned order of seizing the documents and sealing the premises without taking into consideration that the petitioner had a provisional registration and that the petitioner’s Dental Clinic was manned by the person In-charge who had the required qualification.

4. The respondent No. 5 who is the Director of Health Services had filed their affidavit in opposition wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner did not have the approved qualification for opening a Dental Clinic in as much as the petitioner was only a Dental Hygienist and as such the respondent No. 3 has rightly sealed the clinic of the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 had filed his affidavit in opposition wherein it was mentioned that the provisional registration certificate of the clinical establishment found at the time of the raid i.e. on 29.10.2019 have already expired and the petitioner was running the clinic without a valid clinical establishment registration certificate and also without any registered Dentist/Medical Practitioner. It was also mentioned that at the time of raid being made by the Executive Magistrate, Bilasipara on 29.10.2019 it was found that the dentistry setup at the said clinic which was used for performing dental surgery, giving anesthesia, doing mechanical construction etc. but the petitioner was not a registered dentist or authorized medical practitioner who can practice dentistry. It was also mentioned that the certificate which was produced by the petitioner during the time of the raid issued by Delhi Dental Clinic is a certificate of Dental Hygienist and not a dentist and the Dentist Act, 1948 clearly defines the Dentist Hygienist “as a person not being a dentist or a medical practitioner, who scales, cleans and polishes teeth.”

5. To the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent No. 5, the petitioner had filed an affidavit in reply wherein it is categorically mentioned that the writ petitioner is only the owner of the “Hussain Dental Clinic” and as per Se