Antony Dominic, J.

(On behalf of himself and Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.)

1. The Dental Council of India (DCI) has filed this appeal against the order dated 09/10/2015 passed in W.P.(C) 25782/15, whereby its preliminary objection that the writ petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 before this Court was not maintainable for absence of territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

2. Before the Division Bench, respondents 1 and 2 placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. Joseph Issac v. Union of lndia, ILR 2010 (3) Ker. 399. The case was elaborately heard and the Division Bench passed order dated 11th January, 2016 referring the appeal to be heard by a Larger Bench and the questions which are referred for consideration are:

(i) whether the exercise of function by DCI throughout the territories of India would confer jurisdiction of every Court in India to challenge election of the 4th respondent as its President when the election is held at New Delhi, the place of office of DCI, and the nomination of the fourth respondent is by a University in the State of Jharkand?

(ii) whether the judgment in Dr. Joseph Issac (supra) lays down the correct proposition of law in regard to territorial jurisdiction especially in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532 and Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 329.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 are practicing Dental Surgeons registered in Part A Register of DCI. They alleged that the 4th respondent herein, a full time employee in the West Bengal Government service, was nominated by the Government of West Bengal as a Member of the DCI in terms of Section 3(e) of-the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4. It is stated that though his five year term ended on 31/05/2015, both respondents allegedly got elected to DCI from the fifth respondent University on 23/10/2013 under Section 3(d) of the Act. It is alleged that the fourth respondent thereafter manipulated the system in such a way that he got elected as the President of the DCI on 16th April, 2015. According to respondents 1 and 2, the election of the third respondent is illegal and the third respondent was ineligible even to be nominated as member of the DCI. With these allegations, they filed the writ petition with the following two prayers:

(i) issue a writ in the nature of Quo warranto or such writ, order or direction declaring that the 3rd respondent is incompetently continuing as a member of the Dental Council of India insofar as he is unlawfully elected under Section 3(d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 from the 4th respondent University to the Dental Council of India, inasmuch as the said University does not have any Dental Faculty in the University.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Quo warranto or such writ, order or direction declaring that the 3rd respondent is incompetently continuing as the President of the Dental Council of India insofar as he has ceased to be a member of the Dental Council of India after 31/05/2015, his nomination by the West Bengal Government made on 31/05/2010 under Section 3(e) of the Dentists Act, 1948 has expired by 30/05/2015 and hence lacks the basic eligibility to continue in the Dental Council of India.

5. On entering appearance before the learned Single Judge, the appellant raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable before this Court for lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Joseph Issac's case (supra) that plea was negatived by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 9th October, 2015. It was this order, which is challenged in this writ appeal, which, as already stated, was referred to be heard by a Larger Bench. It is accordingly that the matter came up for our consideration.

6. We heard the counsel for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Standing Counsel for the 3rd respon