{"id":246950,"date":"2011-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-07T11:39:09","modified_gmt":"2017-01-07T06:09:09","slug":"karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4941\/2011\t 21\/ 21\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4941 of 2011\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nKARNAVATI\nSCHOOL OF DENTISTRY THROUGH DEEPAK SHISHOO - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n================================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR DC DAVE for Petitioner(s) :\n1, \nMR ANSHIN H. DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE UNSERVED\nfor Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n:30\/08\/2011 \n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)<\/p>\n
\tThis
\nwrit petition has been preferred by the petitioner for direction on
\nrespondents to annul the decision communicated by letter dated 31st
\nMarch 2011 issued by the 1st
\nrespondent to the petitioner.  Further prayer has been made to direct
\nthe respondents to grant permission to the petitioner for commencing
\nPost Graduate Course in the discipline of Dentistry in the speciality
\nof Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry from the
\nacademic year 2011-12.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBy
\nthe impugned letter dated 31st March 2011, the 1st
\nrespondent – Government of India informed the Principal,
\nKarnavati School of Dentistry, its disapproval of the proposal\/scheme
\nwith regard to starting of M.D.S. Course in the speciality of
\nPaedodontics and Preventive Dentistry at Karnavati School of
\nDentistry, Gandhinagar.  However, the College authorities have been
\nallowed to submit their M.D.S. application\/proposal complete in all
\nrespects for the academic year 2012-13 between 1st May
\n2011 and 31st June 2011.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\npetitioner is a self-financing institution imparting education in the
\ndiscipline of Dentistry at the level of graduation and post
\ngraduation since the academic year 2005-06.  It has been granted
\napproval for commencement of post graduate course in the discipline
\nof Dentistry in the specialities of (i) Periodontology, (ii) Oral
\nMedicine & Radiology, and (iii) Prosthodontics and Crown &
\nBridge.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\npetitioner-institution intended to have its set up for the post
\ngraduate course in the discipline of Dentistry and other specialities
\nin (i) Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, (ii) Oral
\nPathology & Microbiology, (iii) Conservative Dentistry and
\nEndodontics, (iv) Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, and (v)
\nPaedodontics and Preventive Dentistry from the academic year 2011-12.
\n Therefore, it has filed an application in June 2010 before the 1st
\nrespondent – Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family
\nWelfare, Dental Education Section, which came to be forwarded by the
\n1st respondent to the 2nd respondent –\n<\/p>\n
Dental Council of India.  On 20th August 2010, the 2nd
\nrespondent – Dental Council of India addressed a communication
\nseeking clarification from the petitioner in respect of publications,
\nwhich the Head of the Department of the petitioner-institution in the
\nspeciality of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry was having to his
\ncredit.  As per the Revised Regulations of 2007, one of the
\nrequirements for commencing a post graduate course in the discipline
\nof Dentistry in any speciality is to the effect that the Head of the
\nDepartment of the concerned speciality in the set up of the concerned
\nCollege proposing to commence such a course shall have, in all, three
\npublications in the specified journals, being either Indexed Journal
\nof National\/International level or Journal of National Dental
\nSpeciality Association, as first author thereof.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\n2nd respondent – Dental Council of India by its
\nletter dated 24th September 2010 intimated all the Dental
\nColleges of the country apprising about the aforesaid requirement and
\npointed out that for the purpose of substantiating the said
\nrequirement, the concerned College proposing to commence a post
\ngraduate course in a particular speciality would be required to
\nsubmit printed copy of each of the publications in the specified
\nJournals claimed to the credit of the concerned Head of the
\nDepartment as first author thereof.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAccording
\nto the petitioner, by letter dated 10th September 2010 it
\nhas forwarded the requisite details to the 2nd respondent\n<\/p>\n
– Dental Council of India followed by communications dated 14th
\nSeptember 2010 and 26th October 2010 furnishing the
\nrequisite details.  The 2nd respondent – Dental
\nCouncil of India by letter dated 7th October 2010 sought
\nclarification from the petitioner in respect of the concerned
\nspecialities referred therein, including the speciality of
\nPaedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, on the aspect of publications
\nto the credit of the concerned Heads of Departments of the concerned
\nSpecialities in the set up of the petitioner as per the Revised
\nRegulations, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe
\npetitioner by letter dated 19th October 2010 forwarded the
\ndetails to the 2nd respondent.  According to the
\npetitioner, at that time one Dr. Mahadevia was holding the position
\nof Professor and Head of the Department of the speciality of
\nPaedodontics and Preventive Dentistry in the set up of the
\npetitioner-institution.  As a result thereof, the concerned
\npublications to the credit of the said Dr. Mahadevia were mentioned
\nin the said communication.  The 2nd respondent –
\nDental Council of India by letter dated 9th September 2010
\nsought further clarification on the aforesaid aspect of publications
\nin respect of various specialities specified therein, including the
\nspeciality of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry.  By
\ncommunication dated 3rd January 2011, the petitioner
\nfurnished to the 2nd respondent – Dental Council of
\nIndia requisite details with regard to the publications in the
\nspecified Journals by the Faculty of the petitioner Dental College in
\nthe speciality of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, including
\nthe details of the concerned publications by the Head of Department
\nof the petitioner-institution in the said speciality. The 2nd
\nrespondent by its letter dated 12th January 2011 asked the
\npetitioner to forward the original of the concerned publication as
\nclaimed to the credit of Dr. Mahadevia, Head of the Department of
\nPaedodontics and Preventive Dentistry.  By another communication
\ndated 3rd February 2011, the 2nd respondent –
\nDental Council of India called upon the petitioner to comply with the
\nrequirement of the Revised Regulations, 2007, particularly with
\nregard to Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAccording
\nto the petitioner, it has submitted the original publication to the
\n2nd respondent on 3rd February 2011 with regard
\nto Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry.  By that time, one Dr.
\nBimal Deep Singh was holding the position of Head of the Department
\nand in the said speciality of Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry,
\nhe had to his credit as on 1st February 2011, in all,
\neight publications, out of which, two publications as first author
\nthereof were already published in the concerned specified Journals,
\nand the third publication was accepted by the concerned specified
\nJournal for publication in its forthcoming edition.  The said third
\npublication was made in the website of the specified Journal.  The
\n2nd respondent in its turn by letter dated 15th
\nFebruary 2011 informed that its Inspectors would visit the
\npetitioner’s premises for inspecting and verifying the
\ninfrastructural and other facilities in their set up for commencing a
\npost graduate course.  Accordingly, the inspection was made by the
\nInspectors of the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\nfurther case of the petitioner was that it was justifiably
\nanticipating a favourable response from the 2nd respondent\n<\/p>\n
– Dental Council of India in the form of recommendation to the
\n1st respondent u\/Sec.10-A of the Dentists Act, 1948, for
\npermission to commence a post graduate course in the Paedodontics and
\nPreventive Dentistry for the academic year 2011-12.  However, to
\ntheir shock, they received the impugned communication dated 14th
\nMarch 2011, whereby the 2nd respondent declined to give
\nsuch permission for the academic year 2011-12, but allowed them to
\napply for the academic year 2012-13.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIt
\nis stated that a hearing was given by the 1st respondent
\non 17th March 2011 when the petitioner brought to their
\nnotice that the Head of the Department in the speciality of
\nPaedodontics and Preventive Dentistry fulfills all the requirements,
\nincluding three publications as first author as per the Revised
\nRegulations, 2007.  But, that was not accepted and the impugned
\nletter was issued on 31st March 2011 refusing to grant
\npermission to start post graduate course in Paedodontics and
\nPreventive Dentistry for the academic year 2011-12.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tAt
\nthis stage, it is stated that by interim order dated 12th
\nMay 2011 a Bench of this Court allowed the petitioner to make a
\nrepresentation before the 2nd respondent.  Thereafter, the
\nrespondents taking into consideration the representation preferred by
\nthe petitioner, on 14\/16th May 2011, issued the
\ncommunication dated 13th June 2011 and rejected the
\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom
\nthe communication made by the respondents, it will be evident that
\nthe respondents refused to grant permission mainly on the ground that
\nthe Head of the Department, Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry do
\nnot fulfill the requisite condition of three publications as the
\nfirst author in Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry subject, as one
\nof those three publications was shown in the website of a Journal,
\nbut not published.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tLearned
\ncounsel for the petitioner would submit that acceptance of concerned
\npaper by concerned Journal for publication thereof in its forthcoming
\nissue, and in the meantime publication thereof in the website of the
\nconcerned Journal would fall within the ambit of expression ‘shall
\nhave published at least three papers as first author’, as
\nappearing in the Revised Regulations, 2007.  Besides this, the
\nprovision of such nature in the Regulation is to ensure that the
\nconcerned Head of the Department is having the requisite academic
\nexcellence and the requirement stands fulfilled if the publication of
\npaper on the website is accepted, and therefore, there is no reason
\nfor not construing the Regulations accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tHe
\nwould further contend that the word `publisher’ appearing in
\nRegulations would mean, `as per P. Ramanatha Iyer’s Law
\nLexicon,`to make generally accessible or available, to place before
\nor offer to public, to bring before the public for sale or
\ndistribution’.  As per the Oxford Advanced Learner’s
\nDictionary, the expression `published something’ would embrace
\nwithin its sweep `to make something available to the public on
\ninternet’.  Therefore, the publication of concerned paper on
\nthe website of the concerned journal would, undoubtedly, qualify as
\nhaving been published within the meaning of the Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tNext
\nit was contended that the concept of publication of the paper by the
\nconcerned Journal on the website is not unknown to the 2nd
\nrespondent – Dental Council of India.  It will be evident from
\nthe communication dated 14th December 2010 of the 2nd
\nrespondent wherein a clarification has been sought as to which of the
\nJournal of the National and International level would qualify as the
\nspecified Journal within the meaning of the Regulations.  As per the
\nsame, all Indexed National and International Journals would qualify
\nas specified Journals for the purpose of Regulations and Indexed
\nNational and International Journals would mean Journals indexed by
\neither Medline or PubMed or approved by the National Medical Library.
\n The list of Journal indexed by Medline refers to Journal of
\nDentistry for Children.  A copy of the list showing the Journal
\nindexed by Medline has been appended, wherein Journal of Dentistry
\nfor Children has been highlighted.  The said Journal of Dentistry for
\nChildren is having exclusively on-line publication with effect from
\n1st January 2007 and information is available on the
\nwebsite of American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry along with the
\nsubscription for the said Journal shows that it has no publication in
\nphysical form.  If the concerned paper was to be accepted for
\npublication in the said Journal named `Journal of Dentistry for
\nChildren’, the publication thereof would have been only in the
\nelectronic form, and the 2nd respondent could not have
\ndiscarded the same, as the same would qualify as publication in the
\nIndexed Journal.  It is stated that along with representation of the
\npetitioner, the material placed with the concerned paper was shown to
\nbe publication by the concerned Journal in the name of `Journal of
\nAdvanced Dental Research’ published in the website named
\nwww.ispcd.org .   The expression `ispcd’ appearing in the
\naddress of the said website refers `International Study of Preventive
\nand Community Dentistry’.  The said International Society is a
\npublisher of the said Journal in the name of `Journal of Advanced
\nDental Research’ approved by the National Medical Library.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tHe
\nwould further submit that if it is viewed in the light of the
\nprovisions embodied in the Information Technology Act, 2000, the said
\npublication on the website would fulfill the requirement of the
\npublication under the Regulations as electronic form as defined
\nu\/Sec.2(r) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tLearned
\ncounsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent while
\ndisputed the aforesaid submissions, contended that there was no third
\npublication produced by the petitioner in respect to Paedodontics and
\nPreventive Dentistry subject.  According to 2nd
\nrespondent, to maintain higher standards in imparting Dental
\neducation by Dental Colleges\/Institutions in the country, the Dental
\nCouncil of India constituted under the Dentist Act, 1948, takes all
\nthe steps to maintain higher standards in all the Dental Colleges in
\nthe country, including the petitioner’s Dental College.  Before
\n1993, it was possible for any person to establish a dental college
\nwithout seeking permission from any State or Central authority.  Over
\na period of time, it was consistently observed that most of the
\ndental colleges and institutions were not able to provide all the
\nnecessary infrastructure and facilities for imparting dental
\neducation of the requisite standards.  With a view to checking the
\nunregulated and uncontrolled and mushrooming growth of the dental
\ncolleges\/institutions or starting of higher courses or increase of
\nadmission capacity in under graduate and post graduate courses in
\nDentistry, the legislature made amendments in the Act called Dentists
\n(Amendment) Act, 1993.  By this amendment Sec.10-A, 10-B and 10-C
\nwere inserted making it absolutely mandatory and obligatory for any
\nperson desirous of establishing a dental college or starting of
\nhigher courses or increase of admission capacity in under graduate or
\npost graduate courses in Dentistry to obtain a prior permission from
\nthe Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tAccording
\nto the 2nd respondent, the Faculty position do not permit
\nthe petitioner’s institution to start post graduate course in
\nPaedodontics and Preventive Dentistry subject.  The Central
\nGovernment by letter dated 26th July 2010 forwarded the scheme of the
\npetitioner’s Dental College for the purpose of starting MDS course in
\ndifferent specialities, namely, (i) Oral Pathology, (ii)
\nOrthodontics, (iii) Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, (iv)
\nConservative Dentistry & Endodontics and (v) Oral and
\nMaxillofacial Surgery  to the 2nd respondent – Dental Council of
\nIndia for its technical evaluation and recommendation for the
\nacademic year 2011-12.  The Dental Council of India by its letter
\ndated 20th August 2010 asked the petitioner’s Dental College to
\nforward the following documents:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tSelf
\nAssessment Report including consolidated list of teaching staff int
\nhe prescribed format, <\/p>\n
(ii)\tProforma
\nfor details of publications\/papers published by teaching staff in the
\nprescribed format.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tThe
\n2nd respondent deputed statutory Inspectors, namely (1) Dr. G.
\nVenkateswara Rao, Khammam and Dr. R.S. Puranik, Bagalkot, (ii) Dr.
\nHari Prasad Rao, Hyderabad and Dr. Anju Loomba, Lucknow, (iii) Dr.
\nHind Pal Bhatia, Ghaziabad and Dr. Ramakrishna Yeluri, Mathura and\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Dr. K. Harish Shetty, Mangalore and Dr. B.S. Keshav Prasad,
\nBangalore to inspect and ascertain the physical facilities such as
\nbuilding, space, teaching staff, their qualifications and other
\ninfrastructural facilities available as per the Dental Council of
\nIndia Regulations, 2006 for starting M.D.S. Course in aforesaid
\nfaculties and specialities for the academic session 2011-12.  The
\ninspections were made in between 7th February and 23rd February 2011.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tThe
\nExecutive Committee of the Dental Council of India in its meeting
\nheld on 26th and 27th February 2011 considered the Inspection Report
\nwith regard to the speciality `Oral Pathology & Microbiology’
\nwith three seats at petitioner’s Dental College for the academic
\nsession 2011-12.  A positive recommendation was communicated to the
\nUnion of India by letter dated 9th March 2011.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tWith
\nregard to specialities `Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics’,
\nthe Committee of Dental Council of India in its meeting held on 15th
\nFebruary 2011 considered the Inspection report, and after discussion
\nand deliberation, recommended Government of India to grant permission
\nto start such M.D.S. course with three seats at petitioner’s Dental
\nCollege for the academic session 2011-12 by letter dated 22nd
\nFebruary 2011.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tA
\npositive recommendation was also made by the Dental Council of India
\nwith regard to the speciality `Conservative Dentistry &
\nEndodontics’, having considered the Inspection Report in Executive
\nCommittee meeting held on 22nd February 2011.  It was recommended to
\nallow such M.D.S. courses in the concerned faculty with three seats
\nfor the academic session 2011-12 by letter dated 4th March 2011.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tThe
\nExecutive Committee in its meeting held on 29th September 2011
\nconsidered in all five letters dated 10th September 2010 received
\nfrom the petitioners Dental College with regard to `Oral and
\nMaxillofacial Surgery’.  By those letters information\/documents for
\nstarting M.D.S. course in the said speciality were submitted.  After
\ndiscussion and deliberation, the Executive Committee decided as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
” Oral
\n& Maxillofacial Surgery<\/p>\n
Since the
\ncollege authorities does not have the (i) requisite attachment of
\nmedical hospital for starting \/ increase of seats in Oral &
\nMaxillofacial Surgery and (ii) teaching staff as per MDS Course
\nRegulations, 2007, the Executive Committee recommends to the Central
\nGovernment to disapprove the scheme \/ application of Karnavati School
\nof Dentistry, Gandhinagar, Gujarat for starting of MDS Course in the
\nspeciality of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery for the academic year
\n2011-12:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe
\ncollege does not have attachment with the Medical College for
\nstarting \/ Increase of seats int he speciality of Oral &
\nMaxillofacial Surgery, attachment with medical college is essential
\nwithin 10 kms. as per DCI circular letter No.DE-14-2010\/A-3481 dated
\n13.7.2010.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nteaching faculty in the department of Oral & Maxillofacial
\nSurgery do not have the following requisite number of publications,
\nin an indexed Journal National\/International OR in any of the
\nNational Dental Speciality Association Journals, as a first author as
\nper MDS Course Regulations, 2007 and the same was also informed \/
\nrequested vide DCI Circulars (i) No.DE-14-2010\/A-3481 dated 13.7.2010
\n& (ii) No.DE-14-2010\/A-6348 dated 24.9.2010:-\n<\/p>\n
\t\tProfessor
\n& HOD\t-3<\/p>\n
\t\tProfessor\n<\/p>\n
\t\t-2<\/p>\n
\t\tReader\t\t-1″\n<\/p>\n
23.\tThe
\naforesaid recommendations were communicated  to the Union of India by
\nletter dated 8th October 2010.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tSo
\nfar as the speciality `Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry’ is
\nconcerned, the Executive Committee of Dental Council of India in its
\nmeeting held on 26th and 27th February 2011 having considered the
\nInspection Report and after discussion and deliberation recommended
\nto the Government of India
\nto disapprove the application of the petitioner’s Institution as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“The
\nExecutive Committee recommends to the Central Government to
\ndisapprove the application of Karnavati School of Dentistry,
\nGandhinagar, Gujarat for starting of MDS Course in the speciality of
\nPaedodontics and Preventive Dentistry for the academic session
\n2011-12, due to the following reason:-\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThere is
\na deficiency of Professor and HOD since Dr. Bimal Deep Singh shown as
\nHOD is not accepted as he does not have requisite publications, as
\nper the Revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007.”\n<\/p>\n
The
\naforesaid decision was communicated by letter dated 9th March 2011.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tSo
\nfar as the claim of the petitioner with regard to Dr. Bimal Deep
\nSingh is concerned, the 2nd respondent disputed the stand that the
\nsaid Head of the Department has three publications as first author.
\nIt is contended that the petitioner itself has accepted that it is
\nawaiting the publication of the third publication in the forthcoming
\nissue of the concerned Journal in the month of of May 2011, and
\nrequested to take the same into consideration.  From such stand taken
\nby the petitioner, it is clear that the third publication was not
\nmade prior to May 2011, more particularly in February 2011 when the
\nmatter was considered.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tReferring
\nto page 67 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the 2nd
\nrespondent would contend that the petitioner cannot say that the Head
\nof the Department has three publications to his credit.  He has only
\none publication as first author as evident from page 67.  So far as
\nthe second publication as shown at page 68 of the writ petition is
\nconcerned, though therein the name of Dr. Bimal Deep Singh is shown,
\nbut he has not been shown as the first author.  Therefore, the second
\npublication as claimed on behalf of Dr. Bimal Deep Singh has not been
\naccepted by the Executive Committee of the Dental Council of India.
\nWith regard to the third publication, as the Journal was to be
\npublished in May 2011, in anticipation of such publication, the
\nmatter could not have been taken up, therefore, no recommendation was
\nmade in its favour.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tIt
\nwas further contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the
\nRevised M.D.S. Course Regulation No.7 framed by the Dental Council of
\nIndia in exercise of power conferred by Sec.20 of the Dentists Act,
\n1948, was published in Gazette on 21st November 2007.  The said
\nRegulation, inter alia, envisage that in addition to possessing of
\nprescribed qualification and teaching experience, Head of the the
\nDepartment shall have published `at least three papers as first
\nauthor in his speciality in National and International Journal’.
\nThese Regulations being statutory and binding in nature are to be
\nstrictly followed by all the concerned, including the petitioner’s
\ncollege, for maintaining the standards of dental education in the
\ncountry at par with the International standards.\n<\/p>\n
28.\tIt
\nis submitted that on receipt of the negative recommendations from the
\nDental Council of India in a number of cases, including the
\npetitioner dental college, the Central Government constituted a three
\nMember Committee under the Chairmanship of Special Director General
\nof Health Sciences with members from All India Institute of Medical
\nSciences, New Delhi, and Lady Harding Medical College\/Hospital, New
\nDelhi, which are institutions of national repute.  The Committee was
\nconstituted to consider the cases where negative recommendations have
\nbeen forwarded by the Dental Council of India.  The Central
\nGovernment for the purpose of affording an opportunity of being
\nheard, u\/Sec.10-A(4) of the Dentists Act, 1948, gave opportunity to
\nall the Dental Colleges, including the petitioner Dental College.
\nThe Committee had given personal hearing to 37 Dental Colleges in 102
\nspecialities on 17th, 18th and 21st March 2011.  Thereafter, it has
\nrecommended 13 proposals\/cases and the Central Government by its
\nletter dated 28th March 2011 requested the Dental Council of India to
\nsend its revised recommendation in respect thereof to the Government
\nof India by 29th March 2011.  But, the petitioner’s case do not find
\nplace amongst the 13 cases referred to the Dental Council of India
\nfor reconsideration, thereby, even the Committee constituted by the
\nCentral Government under the Chairmanship of Special Director General
\nof Health Sciences has also rejected the claim as made by the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
29.\tLearned
\ncounsel for the 2nd respondent would further submit that the Central
\nGovernment has afforded an opportunity to the petitioner Dental
\nCollege for personal hearing and keeping in view the recommendation
\nof the Dental Council of India and type and nature of deficiencies as
\nopined by the Dental Council of India, vide its letter dated 31st
\nMarch 2011, declined its permission to the petitioner Dental College
\nfor starting M.D.S. Course in Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
\nfor the academic year 2011-12.  The petitioner has been given an
\nopportunity to submit such application in complete form for the
\nacademic year 2012-13 at an appropriate time, i.e. between 1st May to
\n30th June 2011.\n<\/p>\n
30.\tThus,
\naccording to the respondents, no indulgence is required to be shown
\nin the case of the petitioner Dental College, which do not fulfill
\nthe requisite conditions.\n<\/p>\n
31.\tIt
\nappears that a time schedule was given under the Dental Council of
\nIndia Regulations 2006, as per which recommendations for the academic
\nyear 2011-12 were required to be sent by 28th February 2011, which
\nwas extended by the Central Government by 30th March 2011.  The
\nSupreme Court by its decision rendered in the case of Mridul
\nDhar v. Union of India reported in 2005(2) SCC 65
\nalso directed to strictly adhere to the time schedule provide in the
\nRegulations.\n<\/p>\n
32.\tCounsel
\nfor the 2nd respondent relied on Supreme Court decision in Krishna
\nPriya Ganguli v. University of Lucknow reported in 1984
\n(1) SCC 307, A.P. Christian Medical College vs. State of A.P.
\nreported in 1986(2) SCC 667.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe case of Krishna Priya Ganguli (supra), the Supreme
\nCourt held that in the matter of admission to Medical Courses
\ninterest of the students should not be sacrificed because of the
\nconduct or folly of the management.  The Apex Court further held that
\nthe Court cannot direct the University to disobey the statute to
\nwhich it owes its existence and the regulations made by the
\nUniversity itself.\n<\/p>\n
33.\tIn
\nthe present case, the matter relates to Standards of Institution,
\nwhich intend to impart teaching of higher courses, namely Post
\nGraduate level M.D.S. Course in the speciality of  Paedodontics and
\nPreventive Dentistry.  To maintain the status of the Institution,
\nstandard of education and in the interest of students and public in
\ngeneral, who will be treated by the Doctors who come out successfully
\nafter passing such Course, none of the provisions made under the
\nRegulations can be compromised.\n<\/p>\n
34.\tAs
\nper the Revised Regulations, 2007, one of the requirement for
\ncommencing a post graduate course in the discipline of Dentistry in
\nany speciality is that the Head of the Department of the concerned
\nspeciality of the concerned College shall have, in all, three
\npublications in the specified Journals, being either Indexed Journal
\nor National\/International level or Journal or National Dental
\nSpeciality Association, as first author thereof.  As per the New
\nOxford Dictionary of English `publication’ means `the preparation and
\nissuing of a book, journal or piece of music for public’.  `Journal’
\nas per the New Oxford Dictionary of English means `a newspaper or
\nmagazine that deals with a particular subject or professional
\nactivity’; `medical journals’.\n<\/p>\n
35.\tFrom
\nAnnexure 2 to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it will be
\nevident that Dr. Bimal Deep Singh, Professor and Head of the
\nDepartment published two papers in Journals (i) `Effect of three
\nbiocompatible metal salts as mouthrinses on plaque pH following a
\ncariogenic challenge’ published in the Journal of Indian Society of
\nPedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, September 1997, an Official
\npublication of The Society of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry,
\nand thereby fulfills the criteria no.3 of letter issued by the second
\nrespondent Dental Council of India and (ii) `Aesthetic Space
\nMaintainer – A Cosmetic Alternative for Pediatric Patients’ published
\nin a Journal of Indian Dental Association, Vol.4, No.12, December
\n2010, and thereby, fulfills the criteria no.4 of letter dated
\n2nd December 2010 written by the Dental Council of India.  Both
\nthe aforesaid publications have been made by Dr. Bimal Deep Singh as
\nfirst author.\n<\/p>\n
36.\tThe
\npetitioner claims the third publication to be `Riga-Fede Disease:
\nReport of a case with Literature Review’.  Therein, though Dr.
\nBimal Deep Singh has been shown as first author, and it is shown as a
\nJournal of Advance Dental Research, Vol. II: Issue II, in Annexure 2,
\nit is stated that the Journal is `Accepted and Published Online’.\n<\/p>\n
37.\tIt
\nappears that one Santosh Kumar, MDS, Gujarat University, India
\nintimated Dr. Bimal Deep Singh that his manuscript entitled
\n“Riga-Fede Disease: Report of a case with Literature Review”
\nhas been accepted for publication in the “Journal of Advanced
\nDental Research”.  The aforesaid letter shows that as on 1st
\nFebruary 2011, the manuscript titled “Riga-Fede Disease:
\nReport of a case with Literature Review” has not been
\npublished.  The said letter being relevant is quoted hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
“JOURNAL
\nOF ADVANCED DENTAL RESEARCH<\/p>\n
 Letter of
\nAcceptance<\/p>\n
Date: 1st
\nFeb, 2011<\/p>\n
Dr. Bimal
\nDeep Singh,<\/p>\n
Professor
\nand Head,<\/p>\n
Dept of
\nPedodontics,<\/p>\n
Karnavati
\nSchool of Dentistry,<\/p>\n
Gandhinagar,
\nGujarat.\n<\/p>\n
Manuscript
\nTitle: \t“Riga-Fede
\nDisease: Report of a case with \t\t\t\tLiterature Review”\n<\/p>\n
Dear Dr.
\nBimal Deep Singh,<\/p>\n
I
\nam very pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled
\n“Riga-Fede
\nDisease: Report of a case with Literature Review”
\nhas been
\naccepted for publication in the “Journal of Advanced Dental
\nResearch.”\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of
\nthe Editorial Board, I wish to thank you for giving us this
\nopportunity to review your work.\n<\/p>\n
Yours
\nsincerely,<\/p>\n
Santosh
\nKumar, MDS\t\tSamir Mulgund, MFDS, RCPSG,<\/p>\n
Gujarat
\nUniversity,\t\t\tRoyal College of Physician,<\/p>\n
India.\t\t\t\t\tGlasgow,
\nUK”\n<\/p>\n
38.\tThe
\nrespondent Dental Council of India has specifically taken the view
\nthat petitioner Institution do not fulfill the criteria for grant of
\napproval for Pedodontics &
\nPreventive Dentistry course for the academic year 2011-12, as Dr.
\nBimal Deep Singh, Professor and Head of the Department of petitioner\n<\/p>\n
– Karnavati School of Dentistry, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, do not fulfill
\nthe criteria of three publications in Journals as first author.\n<\/p>\n
39.\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid specific stand taken by the Dental Council of
\nIndia and the documents produced by the petitioner, as noticed above,
\nwe hold that Dr. Bimal Deep Singh, Professor and Head of the
\nDepartment as on 31st march 2011 was not fulfilling the criteria of
\nthree publications in Journals as first author, and thereby, the
\nrespondents rightly refused to grant approval for starting M.D.S.
\nCourse in the speciality of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry
\nfor the academic year 2011-12.  The so called publication in the
\nwebsite being a manuscript titled as “Riga-Fede Disease: Report
\nof a case with Literature Review” cannot be held to be a
\npublication of Journal, till it is actually published officially by
\nthe concerned publisher in the form of a printed Journal or in the
\nform of a electronic Journal.\n<\/p>\n
40.\tFor the reasons aforesaid, and in absence of any merit, no relief
\ncan be granted.  The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but
\nthere shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
(S.J.\n<\/p>\n
MUKHOPADHAYA, C.J.)<\/p>\n
(J.B.\n<\/p>\n
PARDIWALA, J.)<\/p>\n
[sn
\ndevu] pps<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4941\/2011 21\/ 21 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4941 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ================================================= […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKarnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-07T06:09:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T06:09:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4784,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T06:09:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-07T06:09:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T06:09:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011"},"wordCount":4784,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011","name":"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T06:09:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnavati-vs-union-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karnavati vs Union on 30 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}