Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1629 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.22902 of 2011)

Shaji K. Joseph  ... Appellant

Versus

V. Viswanath & Ors.  ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The  issue  involved  in  this  appeal  is  with  regard  to  

election of a member to the Dental Council of India under  

Section 3 (a) of the Dentists Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred  

to as 'the Act']  and Dental Council (Election) Regulations,  

1952  [hereinafter  referred  to  as  'the  Regulations'].  

Respondent no.1 herein wanted to contest the election, but

Page 2

2

as his name was not in the electoral roll in Part A of the  

register of dentists for the State, his nomination form had  

not  been  accepted  by  the  Returning  Officer,  Respondent  

no.3  herein.  In  these  circumstances,  Respondent  no.1  

preferred Writ Petition (C) No.4075 of 2011 before the High  

Court  of  Kerala  at  Ernakulam challenging  the  validity  of  

rejection of his nomination paper. The Learned Singe Judge  

of  the  High  Court  vide  judgment  dated  23rd May,  2011  

allowed Respondent no.1’s Writ Petition by setting aside the  

order passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting nomination  

in respect of candidature of Respondent no.1 and directed  

the  Returning  Officer  to conduct  the election afresh after  

including  name  of  Respondent  no.1  and  to  declare  the  

result on the basis of such election to be conducted afresh  

from the stage after submission of the nominations.  

4. Being aggrieved by the aforestated judgment delivered  

in  the  writ  petition,  the  present  appellant  preferred  Writ  

Appeal No.806 of 2011 assailing the validity and correctness  

of the said judgment rendered by the Learned Single Judge  

of  the High Court.  The Division Bench of the High Court

Page 3

3

dismissed the Writ Appeal by its judgment dated 18 th July,  

2011  and  therefore,  the  appellant  has  approached  this  

Court by way of this appeal.   

5. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  

submitted that on 3rd May, 2010, the Returning Officer had  

published  preliminary  electoral  roll  as  specified  in  

Regulation  3(1)  of  the  Regulations  and  the  last  date  for  

preferring claims and objections relating to the entries or  

omissions in the preliminary electoral rolls was 30th July,  

2010.  However, the said last date was extended up to 31st  

August  2010.   Ultimately,  the  Final  Electoral  Roll  was  

published  in  the  Extra-ordinary  Gazette  no.35  on  10th  

January, 2011.  The election programme was notified in the  

Gazette on 27th January, 2011, whereby it was notified that  

the  last  date  for  receiving  nomination  papers  was  7th  

February, 2011 and the scrutiny of the nomination papers  

was  to  take  place  on  9th February,  2011.  The  schedule  

prescribed the last date for withdrawal of the nomination as  

16th February, 2011 and the election was to take place on

Page 4

4

18th March,  2011.  Counting  was  to  take  place  on  19th  

March, 2011.   The aforestated facts are not in dispute.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that after the  

process of election had started by publication of the election  

programme on 27th January, 2011, the High Court should  

not have entertained the petition filed by Respondent no.1,  

especially when he was not even an elector/voter and that  

nomination of Respondent no.1 was rightly rejected by the  

Returning Officer because his name was not in the electoral  

roll.   

7. In the circumstances, the learned counsel submitted  

that the appeal should be allowed especially in view of the  

law  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of   N.P.  

Ponnuswami v.  The  Returning  Officer,  Namakkal  

Constituency,  Namakkal,  Salem Dist.  and  others,  AIR  

1952  SC  64,  Nanhoo  Mal  and  others v.  Hira  Mal  and  

others 1976 (3) SCC 211 and Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan  

Swami  (Moingiri  Maharaj)  Sahakari  Dugdha  Utpadak  

Sanstha and another v. State of Maharashtra and others  

2001  (8)  SCC  509.   He  submitted  that  the  aforestated

Page 5

5

judgments of this Court have laid down the law to the effect  

that  once  the  process  of  election starts,  no  court  should  

interfere with the election process.  He further added that in  

view  of  the  fact  that  Section  5  of  the  Act  read  with  

Regulation 20 of the Regulations, specifically provides that  

whenever  any  dispute  arises  in  the  course  of  election,  it  

should  be  referred  to  the  Central  Government,  whose  

decision  shall  be  final. Section  5  of  the  Act  read  with  

Regulation 20 of the Regulations thereunder reads thus:-

“Section 5.  Mode of elections: - Elections under this  Chapter shall be conducted in the prescribed manner  and  where  any  dispute  arises  regarding  any  such  election, it shall be referred to the Central Government  whose decision shall be final.  

Regulation  20.  Procedure  for  setting  aside  election.-   (1)  Before setting aside an election under Section 5,  the Central Government shall give an opportunity to all  the parties concerned to show cause why the election  should not be set aside.  

(2) A decision under Section 5 may be given on the  inquiry  and  report  of  any  person  appointed  by  the  Central Government in that behalf.”

Page 6

6

8. In view of the aforestated provisions of the Act and the  

Regulations, the High Court should not have interfered with  

the process of  the election as it  was open to Respondent  

no.1  to  raise  the  election  dispute  before  the  Central  

Government after completion of the election.  The learned  

counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment  

should be set aside.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent  

no.1  submitted  that  Respondent  no.1  was  competent  to  

contest the election though his name was not registered in  

Part  A of  the State  register.   Respondent no.1 was to be  

elected  by  the  Dentists  whose  names  were  registered  as  

Dentists in Part A of the State register and for the purpose  

of  contesting  the  election,  it  was  not  necessary  that  his  

name should be in Part A of the State register.  To contest  

the election one must be a registered Dentist possessing a  

recognised dental qualification and in fact Respondent no.1  

was having qualification of a Dentist and he was registered  

as  a  Dentist.   In  these  circumstances,  according  to  the  

learned  counsel  appearing  for  Respondent  no.1,  non-

Page 7

7

inclusion of name of Respondent no.1 in Part A of the State  

register was not relevant.

10. He referred to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act,  

relevant portion whereof reads as under:

“Section 3.  Constitution and composition of  Council.- The Central Government shall, as soon  as may be, constitute a Council consisting of the  following members, namely:-  (a) One registered dentist possessing a recognized  dental  qualification  elected  by  the  dentists  registered in Part A of each (State) register;  (b) ……………………………………………………….”

11. According  to  him,  a  registered  Dentist  possessing  

recognised Dental qualification can contest election and as  

Respondent no.1 is a registered Dentist, he was competent  

to contest election even though he was not registered in Part  

A of the State register.  Thus, according to him, to become a  

member of Dental Council of India one need not be in the  

electoral roll or need not be registered in Part A of register of  

dentists for the State.

12. According to the learned counsel, the High Court had  

rightly intervened by setting aside the order passed by the  

Returning  Officer  of  rejecting  nomination  paper  of

Page 8

8

Respondent no.1 and therefore, the appeal deserved to be  

dismissed.

13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at  

length and have considered the provisions of  the Act and  

the judgments referred to hereinabove.

14. In  our  opinion,  the  High  Court  was  not  right  in  

interfering with the process of election especially when the  

process  of  election  had  started  upon  publication  of  the  

election  program  on  27th January,  2011  and  more  

particularly  when  an  alternative  statutory  remedy  was  

available to Respondent no.1 by way of referring the dispute  

to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5  

of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations.  So  

far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent no.1  

for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie  

it appears that Respondent no.1 could contest the election,  

we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our  

opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not  

have interfered with the election after the process of election  

had commenced.   The  judgments  referred to  hereinabove

Page 9

9

clearly  show the settled position of  law to  the effect  that  

whenever  the  process  of  election  starts,  normally  courts  

should  not  interfere  with  the  process  of  election  for  the  

simple reason that  if  the  process of  election is  interfered  

with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed  

without  court’s  order.  Very  often,  for  frivolous  reasons  

candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of  

interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or  

cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having  

election  and  getting  an  elected  body  to  run  the  

administration  is  frustrated.  For  the  aforestated  reasons,  

this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to  

election should be dealt  with only after completion of the  

election.   

15.  This  Court,  in  Ponnuswami v.  Returning  Officer  

(supra) has  held  that  once  the  election process  starts,  it  

would  not  be  proper  for  the  courts  to  interfere  with  the  

election process.  Similar view was taken by this Court in  

Shri  Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri  Maharaj)

Page 10

10

Sahakari  Dugdha  Utpadak  Sanstha v.  State  of  

Maharashtra (supra).  

16. Thus, in view of the aforestated settled legal position,  

the High Court should not have interfered with the process  

of election.  We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment  

and  direct  that  the  result  of  the  election  should  be  

published.  We are sure that due to interim relief granted by  

this Court, Respondent no.1 must not have been permitted  

to contest the election. It would be open to Respondent no.1  

to  approach  the  Central  Government  for  referring  the  

dispute, if he thinks it proper to do so.  No issue with regard  

to limitation will be raised if Respondent no.1 initiates an  

action under Section 5 of the Act within four weeks from  

today.

17. For the aforestated reasons, we allow the appeal with  

no orders as to costs.

         ……………….. ……………….J.

 (ANIL R. DAVE)

.….…………..……………….J.           (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

Page 11

11

     NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 22, 2016.