CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001376/SG/14861
Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001376/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Sunil R. Gajwani
Plot No. 11,
Banerjee Layout
Nagpur-440027
Respondent : Mr. Praveen Dewan
PIO & Assistant Secretary
Dental Council of India
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Government of India
Aiwan-e-Galib Marg
Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002
RTI application filed on : 07/10/2010
PIO replied : 23/12/2010
First appeal filed on : 30/12/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 14/01/2011
Second Appeal received on : 19/02/2011
The Appellant had sought the following information as per Section 31(3) of Dentist act 1948:
S. No Information Sought
1. As per the Act whether the dentist registered in group B are authorized to practice of dentistry
independently in section 2D and 2E like the dentist registered in group A?
2. As per section 34 whether a dentist registered in group B can be entitled to be in a group A (ten
years after date of registration in part B) like the dentist registered in group A?
3. In section 48(a)(misuse of title) whether the dentist registered in group B can use the titles of dental
practitioner, dental surgeon, surgeon dentist or dentist like the dentist registered in group A?
4. Still B group dentist registration facilities are available in your councils or any other state council?
5. Whether any dental qualification is required for registration of the register in group B dentist?
6. Whether the B group registration is stopped by the DCI or central government of India? If stopped
then give the date and year of that.
7. Whether any regulation or amendment has been made by the DCI to stop the B group dentist
registration? Give the official copy of notification in the official gadget.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
The information sought requires interpretation of the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1948 for which as per
the provision of RTI Act, 2005 it is clearly mentioned that no public authority is under obligation to create
information; or to interpret; or to solve the problems raised by the applicant. Only such information can be
had under the Act which already exists with the public authority. However, a copy of Dentists (Code of
Ethics) Regulations, 1976 is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal.
Page 1 of 2
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA agrees with the PIO’s reply and the appeal was disposed off.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Sunil R. Gajwani on video conference from NIC-Nagpur Studio;
Respondent : Mr. Praveen Dewan, PIO & Assistant Secretary;
The PIO has provided information to the Appellant that registration of Part-B has never been done
by the Dental Council of India. The Appellant insist that this is false information. The PIO again reiterates
that as per all the records available with the Dental Council of India the Part-B Registration is done by
State Government and not by the Dental Council of India.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information available on the records appears to have been provided.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
26 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (HA)
Page 2 of 2