Honble YADAV, J.–Although, all these aforesaid 26 writ petitions are posted today, for admission but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I propose to decide these writ petitions on merit, at admission stage.

(2). In the aforesaid writ petitions, common questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, all these writ petitions can be disposed of by a composite order. While deciding these writ petitions, by a composite order, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 624/2000 is treated as a leading case.

(3). All these writ petitions have been filed, challenging the validity of the notification, dated 21.7.99, Annex.-R/5 to the reply, whereby, the State Govt., in exercise of its powers, conferred u/Sec. 32 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as ``the Act of 1948), constituted Registration Tribunal, consisting of the persons, named therein, for entertaining applications for registration, accompanied by prescribed fee of Rs. 800/-, within a period of three months, from the date of publication of the aforesaid notification. All the petitioners also claim certain ancillary reliefs, depending upon the validity of the aforesaid notification, Annex.-R/5 to the reply.

(4). It is pertinent to mention here that vide notification dated 30.8.2000, Annexure-R/6 to the reply, the State Government has withdrawn the notification dated 21.7.99, Annexure-R/5. A mention is made on behalf of the State Government that since the notification, Annexure-R/5, dated 21.7.99, has been withdrawn, therefore, the instant writ petitions have become infructuous. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of State Government by Mr. Narendra Jain is not acceptable to the learned counsel for the petitioners which necessitated to decide these writ petitions on merits, at admission stage, taking into account the administrative exigency in this regard and laxity of State Government, not constituting State Dental Council within the meaning of Section 21 of Dentists Act, 1948, even after expiry of more than 51 years.

(5). The learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that merely because, the notification dated 21.7.99, Annexure-R/5, has been withdrawn by the State Government, the present writ petitions have not automatically become infructuous.

(6). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, raised at the Bar. I am of the opinion that the learned counsel for the petitioners, are correct to make a submission that irrespective of the fact that the State Government has withdrawn the notification dated 21.7.99, Annexure-R/5, by its subsequent notification dated 30.8.2000, Annexure-R/6, even then, the present writ petitions require to be decided on merits. Suffice it to say in this regard that Article- 226 is meant to advance justice between man and man; between man and citizen; and between citizen and State, and even if the petitioners are not entitled to get the reliefs, claimed by them, still, this Court, by moulding the reliefs, is under constitutional obligation, to grant appropriate reliefs, to them for which they are found to be entitled. Looking into the insensitiveness of the State Government, not constituting State Dental Council, as envisaged under Section 21 of the Act of 1948, for a long period of about 51 years, under wrong notion, and in its place, constituting Registration Tribunal, from time to time, within the meaning of Section 32 of the Act of 1948, it becomes imperative for this Court, being constitutional functionary, to adjudicate the controversy finally between the petitioners and State, directing the State to maintain the supremacy of rule of law in a democratic polity like ours by constituting a State Dental Council.

(7). Before deciding the controversy involved in these writ petitions, I would like to give a synopsis of the relevant sections of the Act of 1948, which require interpretation by this Court. Under Section 21 of the Act of 1948, the State of Rajasthan is mandated by Parliament to constitute a St

Click Here to Read the rest of this document