State Govt's NOC Mandatory for New Dental Colleges; Regulation 6(2)(e) of DCI Regulations, 2006 Upheld as Valid: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-08

Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Upholds State NOC Requirement for Establishing New Dental Colleges, Dismisses Plea

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming the mandatory requirement of a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) or 'Essentiality Certificate' from the State Government for establishing a new dental college. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a writ petition filed by the Mamtaz Foundation, which sought to challenge the validity of the regulation mandating this requirement.

The Court held that the Dental Council of India (DCI) acted within its statutory powers by framing the regulation and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the petitioner.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mamtaz Foundation, intended to establish a new dental college in Assam. It filed a writ petition challenging Clause 6(2)(e) of the Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges...) Regulations, 2006. This specific clause makes it compulsory for an applicant to submit an 'Essentiality Certificate' from the concerned State Government, confirming there is 'no objection' to the establishment of the college and that adequate clinical material is available.

Arguments of the Parties

The Mamtaz Foundation's counsel argued that the regulation was invalid for two primary reasons: 1. Exceeds Statutory Mandate: Section 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948, which governs the permission for setting up new dental colleges, does not explicitly require an NOC from the State Government. 2. Procedural Flaw: The 2006 Regulations were not placed before Parliament as mandated by Section 20(4) of the Act, rendering them unenforceable.

In response, the counsel for the Dental Council of India vehemently opposed the plea, submitting that: - Section 10A of the Act mandates prior permission from the Central Government, and the DCI is empowered by Section 20 of the same Act to frame regulations to carry out its purposes. - The requirement for an Essentiality Certificate is a necessary particular that the DCI is authorized to seek under Section 10A(3) to process applications effectively. - The DCI's counsel also highlighted a Supreme Court precedent, Dental Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science & Technology (2004) , which unequivocally established that the Essentiality Certificate is mandatory and cannot be bypassed.

Court's Reasoning and Verdict

The High Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948, and upheld the DCI's regulation. The bench found that the power to demand an Essentiality Certificate was well-founded in the parent statute.

The Court noted, "Section 20(2)(fa) of the Dentists Act, 1948, clearly permits the Dental Council to formulate a regulation wherein the form of the scheme can be prescribed, and particulars to be given in such a scheme... can also be prescribed."

The judgment further observed that the challenged regulation aligns with the statutory framework and is not illegal. The Court drew strength from Section 10A(3) of the Act, which allows the DCI to obtain any particulars it deems necessary to assess a proposal for a new college.

Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in the S.R.M. Institute case, the High Court reiterated that the state government's role is indispensable. The Supreme Court had observed that arguing the State Government has no role to play "will amount to only bypassing the law."

The bench concluded that the petitioner's challenge was without merit. "In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-," the Court ordered. The petitioner's parallel challenge to a similar provision in the regulations for establishing a new Ayurveda college was also dismissed on the same grounds.