Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Against NOC Requirement for Establishing New Dental Colleges

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, which challenged the provisions of Clause 6(2)(e) of the regulations known as Dental Council of India (Establishment of New Dental Colleges, Opening of New or Higher Course of Study or Training and increase of Admission Capacity in Dental Colleges) Regulations, 2006, which requires production of Essentiality Certificate in Form 4 regarding "no objection‟ of the State Government or Union Territory administration.

Petitioner stated that the provisions of Regulation 6(2)(e) of 2006 Regulations is that Section 10A of the Dentists Act, 1948, which is in relation to permission for establishment of new dental college, new courses of study, etc., does not require any such NOC to be obtained from the State Government and further that the provisions of impugned regulation 6(2)(e) of 2006 Regulations are not enforceable for the reason that the Regulations, 2006 have not been placed before the Parliament in terms of the requirement of Section 20(4) of the Dentists Act, 1948.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that, “Regulation 6(2)(e), thus, have been framed by the Dental Council in exercise of authority vested in it under Section 20 of the Dentists Act, 1948, that too with the approval of the Central Government, and accordingly, we do not find any illegality in this respect on the part of the Dental Council of India… prayer of the petitioner also does not have any legs to stand, and accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed in this respect as well.”

Further, the Court observed that, “Section 10A(3) of the Dentists Act, 1948 also permits the Council to obtain such other particulars as may be considered necessary on receipt of the scheme/ application by an organization/ person seeking to open up a new Dental College. The particulars to be sought for the purposes of processing any such application in terms of Section 10A(3) are not restricted, rather, whatever particulars are thought to be appropriate and necessary by the Council, such particulars can be asked for to be submitted by the person/ organization seeking to open such new Dental College.”

Advocate Advocate Murari Lal Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate T. Singhdev appeared for Dental Council of India, and CGSC Dr. Monika Arora appeared for the Central Government.

Court Reasoning

The Court refers to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dental Council of India v. S.R.M. Institute of Science & Technology and Another, (2004) 9 SCC 676,

“wherein, it has been clearly observed that in cases of recognition of dental colleges or starting of higher courses, law regulating opening of new dental colleges is mandatory in nature and have got to be complied with. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has further proceeded to observe that in the absence of permission of Essentiality Certificate, no Court could make any interim order for the reason that such an application will not be complete without being accompanied by permission or essentiality certificate by the State Government. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has further observed in Dental Council of India (supra) that it is not correct to say that the State Government has no role to play in the matter and if such an argument is permitted, it will amount to only bypassing the law.”

Cause Title: Mamtaz Foundation Through its Director v. Dental Council of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) 4941/2025)

Appearence

Petitioner Advocate Murari Lal Sharma.

Respondent Advocates T. Singhdev, Abhijit Chakravarty, Tanishq Srivastava, Anum Hussain,  Ramanpreet Kaur, Yamini Singh, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, and Bhanu Gulati for R-1.

CGSC Dr. Monika Arora, with Advocates Subhrodeep Saha, Ms. Anamika Thakur, and Prabhat Kumar, for R-3.

Click here to read/download the Judgment