{"id":42220,"date":"1998-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998"},"modified":"2019-03-18T19:15:51","modified_gmt":"2019-03-18T13:45:51","slug":"c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998","title":{"rendered":"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 75 (1998) DLT 200, 1999 (48) DRJ 71<\/div>\n
Author: U Mehra<\/div>\n
Bench: U Mehra<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 Usha Mehra, J. <\/p>\n
 1.     Petitioner,  Dr. C. Bhaskara Rao was elected as Vice President of  the Dental Council of India (hereinafter called the Council) in the meeting  of the  Council  held on 15th May, 1996. He has assailed  the  arrangement  of sharing by virtue of which Dr. R.K. Bali, respondent No.3 has been appointed as the President of the Council. His challenge is primarily based on two counts  namely; (1) that two persons cannot share the tenure of the  office of the President. The tenure of the post of President is for five years. It cannot  be  divided.  (2) Secondly arrangement of sharing of  the  post  of President  or  rotation of the tenure amongst two persons  is  against  the Consist  Act, 1948 (herein after called the Act) and the  election  regulations.  Since  the election of November, 1995 has been set aside  and  even other wise no one got absolute majority in that election held in  November, 1995,  hence no one could have been appointed to work as President. In  the absence  of a President it is always the Vice President who officiate,  act and perform the duties and responsibilities of a President. In the event of there  being a tie i.e. when two persons secured the same number of  votes, then the election of that post has to be held afresh. Those persons  cannot by  mutual private arrangement split the tenure of the President  into  two parts.  In  the  case of tie no body gets elected. There has  to  be  fresh elections  and  till  such time fresh elections are held,  the  duties  and responsibilities  of the post of President are to be performed by the  Vice President  which  in  this case means the petitioner.  Thus,  according  to petitioner, the arrangement of sharing being bad consequently the  appointment of Dr. Bali is illegal and void.\n<\/p>\n
 2.   In  order to appreciate the challenge laid by the petitioner, we  must grasp  few  facts relevant for the determination of  these  questions.  The Dental Council of India, a body corporate under the Act, functions  through its  elected Members. Dr. R.K. Bali was the President of the  Council.  His term  expired  in October, 1994. Accordingly, the then Vice  President  Dr. Shetty assumed charge as Acting President of the Council per the Regulation No.  35. In November, 1995 the General Body of the Council decided to  hold election for the post of President, Dr. R.K. Bali, Dr. L.K. Gandhi and  Dr. Sridhar  Shetty  came in the fray for the post of  President.  Total  votes polled were 63, out of which one vote was declared invalid. The out come of that fray was that Dr. Bali and Dr. Shetty secured 22 votes each, where  as Dr. Gandhi secured 18 votes. Since there was a tie between Dr. Bali and Dr. Shetty,  it became difficult to untangle the knot. The Council,  therefore, decided  to refer the matter for opinion to the Central  Government,  Legal opinion was also received by the Council from its Advocate. However, at the intervention  of the Health Minister Dr. Shetty and Dr. Bali arrived at  an agreement to share the tenure of the post of President. The agreed proposal to share the tenure of the office of President was submitted to the Central Government. This arrangement of sharing of the tenure of the President  was also put to the House. The House unanimously approved the proposal and  the arrangement of sharing. On the other hand the under Secretary, Ministry  of Health  vide  letter  dated 30th April 1996 conveyed to  the  Council  that proposal submitted by it had been kept on record. This reply of the Central Government  was treated by the Council as the decision of the Central  Government  i.e.  approval of the sharing arrangement. The  Secretary  of  the Council accordingly issued a general circular dated 8th May, 1996 informing all  concerned that Dr. Shetty would take over as President of the  Council and his tenure shall continue till 16th January, 1998, and there after, Dr. Bali would take over as President on 17th January, 1998. Thus in the General Body Meeting of 15th\/16th May, 1996 Dr. Shetty was declared President of the  Council. Dr. Shetty before being elected as President was holding  the post  of Vice President. On Dr. Shetty becoming President of  the  Council, the post of Vice President of the Council, the post of Vice President  fell vacant.  Accordingly, it was decided in that meeting of 15th May,  1996  to elect a Vice President. Consequently, through secret ballot this petitioner was elected as the Vice President of the Council. Since then the petitioner has been working as Vice President.\n<\/p>\n
 3.   Dr. Gandhi challenged the election of the President held on 6th November,  1995  by making representation to the Central  Government  and  there after  filed  a writ petition. In that petition he  raised  two  objections regarding  the election held in November, 1995, namely; (1)  irregularities committed  in the election held on 6th November, 1995 and that  arrangement of sharing of the post of President amongst Dr. Shetty and Dr. Bali was not permissible.  It  is the case of the petitioner that  the  first  challenge raised  by  Mr. Gandhi before the Central Government was  answered  in  his favour.  The election of 6th November, 1995 has been set aside by the  Central  Government  on the ground of irregularities. As regard  Dr.  Gandhi’s objection with regard to arrangement of sharing, Central Government did not give  any  decision. Petitioner’s case is that in the  absence  of  Central Government’s approval of arrangement of sharing, the tenure of the post  of President  could  not  be shared by Dr. Shetty and  D.  Bali  between  them selves.  As the election has already been set aside by the Central  Government  on the ground of irregularities hence Dr. Bali has no right  to  hold the post of President. Petitioner further averred that holding of the  post of of President has been challenged by Dr. Bali by way of a writ  petition. This  Court  granted the stay against the order of the  Central  Government which is still operating.\n<\/p>\n
 4.   Petitioner in this writ beside challenging the arrangement of  sharing has  also challenged the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act being  ultra vires.  Before  dealing with the points raised by the petitioner,  I  would like to make it clear that Division Bench while hearing the petition on the question  of  admission vide order dated 5th February, 1998 held  that  the challenge to Section 7(2) of the Act was without substance and,  therefore, turned it down. Now, there fore, we are left with the challenge against the arrangement  of sharing and the appointment of respondent No.3 Dr. Bali  to
\nthe post of President.\n<\/p>\n
 5.   At this stage it would be convenient to refer to some of the  relevant provisions  of the Act and the Regulations made there under.  The  relevant provisions  of the Act and Regulations for the determination of the  points raised are reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n
      SECTION 3 (a), (b), (c), (d):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3. The Central Government shall, as soon as may be, constitute  a Council consisting of the following members, namely :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (a) one registered dentist possessing a recognised dental  qualification  elected  by the dentist registered in Part  A  of  each (State) register ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b) one member elected from amongst the selves by the members  of the Medical Council of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (c)  not more than four members elected from among  them  selves, by-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (a)  Principals, Deans, Directors and Vice Principals  of  dental colleges  in the States training students for  recognised  dental qualifications:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Provided that nor more than one member shall be elected from  the same dental college;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (b)  Heads  of dental wrings of medical colleges  in  the  States training students for recognised dental qualifications;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d)  one  member from each University established by law  in  the State which grants recognise dental qualification, to be  elected by  the members of the Senate of the University, or in  case  the University  has  no  Senate, by the members of  the  court,  from amongst the members of the Dental Faculty of the University or in case  the  University  has no Dental Faculty,  from  amongst  the members of the Medical Faculty thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “SECTION 5  <\/p>\n
      Election 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”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      SECTION 7 (1) & (2) <\/p>\n
      7  (1) The President and Vice President of the Council  shall  be elected by the members thereof from among the selves:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Provided that on the first constitution of the Council and  until the  President is elected, a member of the Council  nominated  by the  Central Government in this behalf shall discharge the  functions of the President.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Provided further that for five years from the first  constitution of the Council, the President shall, if the Central Government so decides,  be  a person nominated by the  Central  Government  who shall hold office during the pleasure of the Central  Government, and  where he is not already a member, shall be a member  of  the Council in addition to the members referred to in Section 3.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7(2) An elected President or Vice President shall hold office  as such for a term not exceeding five years and not extending beyond the  expiry of his term as member of the Council, but subject  to his  being a member of the Council, he shall be eligible for  reelection.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      SECTION 20  <\/p>\n
      20(1)  The Council may, with the approval of the Central  Government, [by notification in the Official Gazette] make  regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act to carry out the purpose of this Chapter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of  the foregoing power such regulations may- <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (a) provide for the management of the property of the Council  <\/p>\n
 (b) prescribe manner in which elections under this Chapter  shall be conducted;\n<\/p>\n
      (c)  provide  for the summoning and holding of  meetings  of  the Council and the Executive Committee, the time and places at which such meetings shall be held, the conduct of business there at and the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d) prescribe the functions of the Executive Committee;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (e)  prescribe  the powers and duties of the President  and  Vice President ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (f)  prescribe the tenure of office and the powers and duties  of the  Secretary [and other officers and servants of  the  council, and inspectors and Visitors appointed by the Council] ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (g) prescribe the standard curricula for the training of dentists and  dental  hygienists,  and the  conditions  for  admission  to courses of such training ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (h)  prescribe the standards of examinations and  other  requirements  to be satisfied to secure for  qualifications  recognition under this Act ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (i)  any other matter which is to be or may be  prescribed  under this Act:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Provided that regulations under Clauses   <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (g) and (h) shall be made after consultation with (State)  Governments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (3)  To enable the council to be first constituted,  the  Central Government may make regulations for the conduct of the  elections to  the  Council, and any regulation so made may  be  altered  or rescinded  by  the Council in exercise of its powers  under  this section.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (4)  Every  regulation made under this Section shall be  laid  as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while  it is in session for a total period of thirty  days  which may  be  comprised in one session or in two  or  more  successive sessions,  and  it, before the expiry of the  assign  immediately following  the  session or the successive sessions a  fore  said, both House agree in making any modifications in the regulation or both  Houses  agree that the Regulation should not be  made,  the regulation  shall there after have effect only in  such  modified form  or be of no effect, as the case may be; so,  however,  that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice  to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      REGULATION NO. 34  <\/span><\/p>\n
      “An elected President shall hold office for a period not  exceeding five years from the date of election. He shall exercise  such powers and perform such duties as are contained in the provisions of  the Act, the Regulations and Standing Orders of the  Council. He  shall do such acts as he considers necessary in the  furtherance of the objects for which the Council is established.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      REGULATION NO. 35  <\/span><\/p>\n
      “Vice President shall hold office for a period not exceeding five years  from the date of election. If the office of the  President is  vacant or if the President for any reason is unable to  exercise  the  powers or perform the duties of his office,  the  Vice President will act in his place and shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the President.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 6.   Reading  of Section 20 of the Act makes it clear that the power  vests with  the Council to make regulations. Pursuance to the provisions of  Section 20 the Council framed Regulations known as Dental Council (Election  ) Regulation 1952.\n<\/p>\n
 7.   Mr.Vikas Singh appearing for the petitioner contended that as per  the provisions  of the Act only the Returning Officer could have  declared  the results. Returning officer was appointed in this case but till date he  has not  declared the results. Hence the taking over by Dr. Bali  as  President pursuance  to  the election held on 6th November, 1995 is invalid.  In  the absence of result having been declared by the Returning Officer neither Dr. Shetty  nor Dr. Bali could perform the duties of the  President.  Moreover, there is no provision under the Act or the regulations enabling or  permitting two persons to share the tenure of the office of President. The tenure of office of a President is for a maximum period of five years. Use of  the expression “an elected president” in Section 7(2) of the Act and Regulation No.  34 clearly show that Legislature had in mind singular President.  Thus the  tenure of the office of the President could not have been made  plural by mutual agreement. Under the Act there is no concept of having two Presidents. The expression an elected President and his term are a clear pointer to  the fact that during the period of five years there would be  only  one elected  President.  There cannot be two elected Presidents whose  term  as president would expire with their term as member. The expression “His term” means one elected President whose term as President would co-terminate with his  term as member. To arrive at this conclusion reference can be made  to Section  7(2)  of  the Act which points out that there would  be  only  one elected president. Sharing of the tenure of President during the period  of five  years is neither stipulated nor permissible. If this is permitted  it would lead to undesirable consequences.\n<\/p>\n
 8.   That  the power of the Council is subordinate to the planary power  of the  Central Government. The Council can exercise its power subject to  the approval  of the Central Government. In this case the Returning Officer  in view of the dispute which arose between Dr. Shetty and Dr. Bali on  account of  the tie referred the same to the Central Government for  its  decision. That decision having not been given by the Central Government, the  Council of  its own could not have permitted the illegal occupation of the post  of President  by  Dr.  Bali. This action is in violation of the  Act  and  the Regulation.  The Central Government vide its letter dated 30th  April  1996 only intimated that it had kept on record the letter of the Council regarding  the  proposal  of arrangement of sharing. This  communication  of  the Central Government by no stretch of imagination would mean approval of  the Central Government. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,
\nand Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. , Mr. Vikas Singh contended that unless the arrangement of sharing was approved  by the Central Government mere intimation of the Central  Government  that  Council’s proposal had been kept on record was not  enough  nor would  mean that the proposal had been approved by the Central  Government. In the case of Bachhittar Singh (supra) the Apex Court held that Communication  of  the order to the person concerned is the essence  of  the  order. Secondly in this case as in Bachhittar Singh’s case (supra) order was to be of the Central Government. But none of these conditions stood satisfied  in the  case  in  hand. Similarly, in the case  of  Gulabrao  Keshavrao  Patil (supra) the Apex Court emphasise that before an order or action could bind, it  has to be drawn in the name of the appropriate authority i.e.  in  that case  it  was the Governor. Instead of Governor in that case  decision  was taken  by  the Minister. The same has held to be invalid.  After  analysing Article  164 (2) of the Constitution the Apex Court observed that  decision of a Minister under the Business Rule is not final or conclusive until  the requirements  in  terms of Clauses(1) & (2) are complied with.  Relying  on these  observations Mr. Vikas Singh contended that the  Central  Government having  not approved the arrangement, mere blessing of the  Minister  would not amount to be a decision of the Central Government. Even other wise  the decision  of the Minister was never communicated to the council or  to  the Returning  Officer.  The  Council of its own could not  have  approved  the arrangement  of sharing nor permit the sharing of the office of the  President amongst two persons.\n<\/p>\n
 9.   Mr.  Vikas  Singh relying on the provisions of Section 5  of  the  Act contended  that when a dispute if referred to the Central  Governments  its decision  is final. But in this case the Central Government never gave  any decision  confirming the arrangement of sharing, therefore,  assumption  of office  of President by Dr. Bali is not only bad but against  the  Statute. Further moreover, the Central Government has already set aside the election of  the President held on 6th November, 1995. This order was passed on  the representation  of Dr. Gandhi. Therefore, Dr. Bali on the strength  of  6th November,  1995  election which has already been set aside could  not  have been  appointed  as the President. The tenure of the  office  of  President being of five years and co-terminus with the expiry of his tenure as member that  is  why tenure of the President is not a fix tenure. That is  why  in Section 7(2) the expression used is “a President” meaning there by when the term of a person as member comes to an end he would no longer be the President.  In  that case he would cease to be the President and  for  remaining tenure fresh elections have to be held. Since the post of President is  co-terminus  with his tenure as member it makes sense that there can  only  be one  President  for that term whose tenure as President  will  co-terminate with his term as Member. Dr. Shetty’s term as member is to expire in  October, 1998. His term as President at best could continue till October, 1998. But  by this arrangement he relinquished his post of President in  January, 1998. Hence his term as President expired in January, 1998. Thereafter  the office  of the President fell vacant. It could not have been filled by  the illegal  appointment  of respondent No. 3 on the strength  of  the  alleged arrangement which is bad in law. Neither the Act nor the regulations stipu-late that the tenure of the post of Presidents can be split in to parts  to enable two members to enjoy the office of the President in their respective term as member. The term of office of the President is with the term of  an individual  Member and no with office. Therefore, it was necessary to  hold fresh  elections after Dr. Shetty relinquished the charge as  President  in January 1998.\n<\/p>\n
 10.  Mr.  R.K. Anand, Senior Advocate appearing for Dr. Gandhi  while  supporting  the case of the petitioner contended that if this  arrangement  is given the seal of approval, it would adversely effect the right of the  new electorate.  Electorate  who  join subsequently cannot  aspire  to  contest election  after  the term of Dr. Shetty came to an end or on the  date  Dr. Shetty  relinquished the post of President. By allowing Dr. Bali to act  as President  pursuance to the arrangement of sharing, the object of  the  Act and  in particular of Section 7(2) has been frustrated. Those  Members  who joined  subsequently their rights stood effected. Relying on  Section  7(2) Mr.  Anand  contended that the term of President is not a fixed  tenure  of five  year.  It  is co-terminus with his term as Member. A  person  who  is elected  President for five years may not be President for five  years  because  of  his  term as Member coming to an end earlier, he  will  have  to relinquish the office of the President the day he cases to be a member. Dr. Shetty’s  term as member would come to an end in October,  1998  therefore, the  electorate hoped that they would get opportunity to contest the  election  of the President in January, 1988 when Dr. Shetty vacated the  office of  the  President.  But by this arrangement their hopes  and  right  stood adversely effected.\n<\/p>\n
 11.  According to Mr. Vikas Singh even though the petitioner did not  challenge  the arrangement of sharing either in the meeting of  15th\/16th  May, 1996  or till January, 1998 but this would not act as an  estoppel  against him. Their is no estoppel against the Statute Since the Act does not envisage arrangement of sharing to the office of President, hence the principles of  estoppel  would not apply in this case. To support  his  contention  he placed  reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of  Shabi Construction  Company Vs. City & Industrial Development Corporation &  Anr.\n<\/p>\n
in  , I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards &  Anr.  Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. & Ors.,  and Union
\nTerritory,  Chandigarh, Admn. & Ors. Vs. Managing Society, Goswami  GDSMDC, . Moreover Dr. Gandhi has  already  challenged the election on the ground of irregularity and sharing of arrangement.  The government of India in its counter affidavit filed in Dr. Gandhi’s petition admitted that under the Act there was no provision of sharing of office  of the  President  by two incumbents in the event of a tie. In  view  of  this admission  of the Central Government that there is no provision of  sharing nor the Competent Authority communicated its approval or sanction for  this arrangement.  Therefore, the occupation of the office of President  by  Dr. Bali  is bad. When confronted why the writ petition was not filed when  Dr. Shetty  took  over  as the President, Mr. Vikas Singh  explained  that  Dr. Shetty had colour of office. Dr. Shetty held the office of Vice  President, therefore,  could  be called office holder having colorable  authority  or some  colour of title to the post of President. He being the  duly  elected Vice  President  on  the falling of the post of President,  he  being  Vice President  as per Regulation No.35 was the only competent person to act  as President.  Dr. Shetty having a colour of the office, he being Vice  President was competent to perform the duties of the President. It was only when Dr.  Bali  took over as President that the cause of action accrued  to  the petitioner.  Thus according to him there was no delay in filing  this  writ petition.  Moreover, the Returning Officer having nor declared the  result, therefore,  holding of office by appellant is bad in law. The  decision  on 15th  May, 1996 was taken by declaring Dr. Shetty as the  President.  There was  neither  prior approval of the Central Government nor the  result  was declared  by the Returning Officer. Even the decision declaring Dr.  Shetty as  the President was taken prior to the meeting of General Body, to  which petitioner  was not a party. Dr. Bali has in fact no locus standi  nor  any right to act as President nor by mutual agreement he could be conferred the right to act as President of the Council. This action is against the provisions  of  the Act and the Regulations. Dr. Shetty, of course,  could  have acted as President as per Regulation 35 because he was the then Vice President of the Council. Such a right does not exist in favour of Dr. Bali.\n<\/p>\n
 12.  Countering these arguments Mr. Madan, Bhatia, Senior Advocate  appearing  for  Dr. Bali, respondent No. 3 contended that this  petition  is  not maintainable  and suffers from legal infirmities, namely, an abuse  of  the process of the Court, there are suppression of material facts, the petition suffers from delay and latches. Finally, the petitioner having taken advantage  of  this arrangement of sharing he is estopped from  challenging  the same.  He was party to the unanimous decision of the Council there  by  approving the arrangement, hence he cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.\n<\/p>\n
 13.  Taking  the first ground i.e. abuse of the process of the  Court,  Mr. Madan Bhatia contended that the petitioners had filed an application  bearing CM. No. 1029\/97 in Civil Writ Petition No. 4855\/97. In CM. No.  1029\/97 he  claimed  these  very reliefs and prayed for the vacation  of  the  stay granted  against Central Government’s order declaring the election  of  6th November, 1995 as invalid. Since the petitioner failed to get a  favourable order  in him CM No. 1029\/97, hence he has filed this petition  during  the pendency  of  his CM. No. 1029\/97. This according to Mr. Madan  Bhatia,  is nothing  but an abuse if the process of the Court not only petitioner  committed  abuse  of the process of the Court but in fact concealed  and  suppressed  the material facts, for example, the decision of the General  Body Meeting of the Council held on 15th\/16th May, 1996. In the said Meeting the General  Body  unanimously resolved that the post of  President  should  be shared  amongst  Dr. Shetty and Dr. Bali and approved  the  arrangement  of sharing. To this Resolution the petitioner was a party. Bear reading of the proceedings  of the Council of that date show that Council under stood  the letter  of the Central Government to be its approval of the arrangement  of sharing. It is in that meeting of 15th\/16th May, 1996 that the General Body resolved and declared Dr. Shetty to be the President Consequently the  post of Vice President fell vacant. It was ordered to be filled up in the  meeting by holding secret ballot. This petitioner offered for the post of  Vice President and was elected so. Even otherwise there existed approval of  the Central Government of this arrangement of sharing because the Minister  the Competent  Authority on behalf of the Central Government approved  the  arrangement. This can be verified from the Government file. It is only thereafter that the letter of 30th April, 1996 was issued.\n<\/p>\n
 14.  Taking up the ground of delay and latches, Mr. Madan Bhatia  contended that  the arrangement for sharing was implemented in May, 1996. Dr.  Shetty pursuance to that arrangement of sharing was declared President. He started functioning  and  performing the responsibilities and duties  of  President w.e.f.  May, 1996 itself. The present writ petition was filed in  February, 1998  i.e.  almost  after two years. No reasons assigned  for  this  delay. Moreover  the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of  Dr.  Shetty which  was  also pursuance to that arrangement. The first half  of  sharing came  to an end on 16th January, 1998. If the petitioner was  aggrieved  by that  arrangement  he  ought to have challenged the same in  May,  1996  or immediately  thereafter. But he waited to allow Dr. Shetty to complete  his tenure as per the arrangement. This silence on his part is a clear  pointer to  his  having waived his right and acquiescence. From his conduct  it  is clear  he accepted the arrangement of sharing. Sharing of tenure of  President  between Dr. Shetty and Dr. Bali was an integral part of the  arrangement. The tenure of one from that of the other cannot be segregated nor can be treated separately. If the arrangement of sharing could be valid qua Dr. Shetty,  it cannot be invalid qua Dr. Bali. Had the  petitioner  challenged the  arrangement  of sharing in May, 1996 i.e. on the day  Dr.  Shetty  was declared President and the election on that ground had been set aside, then the petitioner could not have been appointed as Vice President. Dr.  Shetty would  have continued as Vice President. In that event this  petitioner  on the  strength of Regulation 35 could not have claimed as of right the  post of President. He with ulterior motive kept sitting on the fence so long Dr. Shetty  remained President. It was only due to the arrangement  of  sharing that  the post of Vice President fell vacant and this  petitioner  occupied the  same. Having taken advantage of the post of Vice President it  is  not fair  for him to contend that the unanimous resolution of the  Council  approving  the arrangement of sharing is bad in law. Nor can he be  permitted to  argue  that Dr. Shetty had colorable authority to occupy the  post  of President because he was the then Vice President of the Council.\n<\/p>\n
 15.  Taking up the preliminary objection that the petitioner has  committed abuse of the process of the Court, it cannot be denied that the  petitioner filed an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India  in CW No. 4855\/97 seeking these very reliefs. That application is still  pending.  For  the same relief the present writ petition has  been  filed.  The petitioner having availed the remedy under Article 226(3) of the  Constitution of India and that application having been pending strictly speaking it would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, though on this ground alone I am not basing my finding.\n<\/p>\n
 16.  As  regards the contention of Mr. Madan Bhatia, Senior  Advocate  that the petitioner suppressed certain important facts, I find no force in  this submission,  petitioner  admittedly did not mention that the  letter  dated 30th  April  1996 of the Central Government was placed before  the  General Body,  or that Dr. Shetty was unanimously elected as President in the  said meeting.  On Dr. Shetty becoming President the post of Vice President  fell vacant  to  which  in that very meeting the petition was  elected  as  Vice President. It has also not been mentioned that the petitioner was party  to the resolution and to the arrangement of sharing. That the arrangement  was approved by the House. He offered him self for the post of Vice  President. Though these facts have not been mentioned in the petition in detail but in substance  have been mentioned either in the petition or in  the  documents annexed  with  the petition. Hence it cannot be said that  there  has  been suppression  of material facts. It was not necessary for the petitioner  to plead evidence in his petition. According to petitioner no formal  sanction of  the  Central Government was received. Where as according to  Mr.  Madan Bhatia letter dated 30th April, 1996 was treated by the House as  sanction. There  can be difference of perception in the appreciation of these  facts. For  these  reasons, I do not find any substance in the contention  of  Mr. Madan Bhatia that petitioner suppressed material facts from the Court.\n<\/p>\n
 17.  The  other  legal  objection raised by Mr. Madan  Bhatia  pertains  to petitioner’s  deliberately filing incomplete minutes of the meeting of  the Council  held on 15th\/16th May 1996. This Mr. Madan Bhatia says  the  petitioner  did in order to mislead this court. Mr. Vikas Singh  has  explained the  circumstances under which incomplete minutes were filed. There was  no intentional  omission. The correct copy has already been placed on  record. In  view of the explanation given by Mr. Vikas Singh, no mala fide on  this count can be attributed to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 18.  So  far as the delay in presenting this petition is concerned, I  find substance in the argument of Mr. Madan Bhatia. This petition beside suffering from delay and latches is also liable to be dismissed on the  principle of stoppel. The petitioner did not challenge the appointment of Dr.  Shetty when he was declared president of the Council on 15th May, 1996. Dr. Shetty took  charge  as President not on account of being Vice  President  as  per Regulation  No.  35 but on account of the arrangement of sharing  duly  approved  by  the House. This petitioner cannot be allowed to  approbate  and reprobate  in the same breath. He cannot be allowed to accept part  of  the arrangement i.e. appointment of Dr. Shetty and challenge the other part  of the  same  by virtue of which Dr. Bali took over as  President  in  January 1998.  If  this arrangement is bad qua Dr. Bali, it could  not,  have  been valid  qua Dr. Shetty. The challenge to this arrangement of  sharing  after almost  two  years of its implementation could not be but  four  mala  fide reasons.  The arrangement of sharing was unanimously approved by the  House on  15th\/16th May, 1996. It was only when this arrangement was  implemented thereby appointing Dr. Shetty as, President that the post of Vice President fell  vacant  to  which the petitioner got elected. If we  go  through  the grounds  taken in this petition and in particular grounds (b) (c)  (f)  (g) (h)  (i) (m) and (n), it shows that the challenge in this petition is  only to  the arrangement of sharing and not to the appointment of Dr. Shetty  as President.  Having accepted the appointment of Dr. Shetty as President  due to that arrangement, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now  to challenge  that  arrangement particularly after having taken  advantage  of this arrangement. The principles of estoppel and acquiescence have come  to play.  Decision  of the Apex Court in the case of  Maharashtra  State  Road Transport  Corporation Vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati &  Ors.,  has a great bearing on the facts of  this  case.  In Amravati’s case (supra) RTA passed on order on 10\/11 September 1995  fixing the  date of the commencement of the service. A compromise was  reached  by the  parties  during  the operation of the said order. By  virtue  of  that compromise the long protracted litigation came to an end. By virtue of that compromise  time  was  allowed to the private operators to  wind  up  their business. Subsequently the private operators challenged the said compromise order. Rejecting their objection, the Apex Court observed that the  private operator  including  the  respondent were present  through  duly  appointed counsel  when the order of 10th\/11th September, 1995 was passed.  They  had accepted that compromise and acted upon it, derived benefits and advantages therefrom.  It  was further observed that “but for that order  of  the  RTA which  suspended the operation of the permit of the appellant, the  private operators including the respondent could not have got temporary permits  to operate on the same routes”. Therefore the Apex Court held that they acquiescence the RTA’S order hence disentitle to the relief claimed in the  writ petition.  It  further  observed that the writ of certiorari  will  not  be granted in a case where their is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the adverse party.  These observations  of the Apex Court were based on the principal stated  by  Sir Barnes  Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Co. Vs. Prosper Armstrong Hurd,  Abram Farewall and John Kemp, (1874) 5 PC 221, which is reproduced as under :\n<\/p>\n
       “Now the doctrine of latches in Courts of Equity is not an  arbitrary  or  a technical doctrine. Where it  would  be  practically unjust  to  give a remedy, either because the party has,  by  his conduct,  done that which might fairly be regarded as  equivalent to  a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect  he  has, though  perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other  party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to palace  him if the remedy were after wards to be asserted in either of  these cases,  lapse of time and delay, are most material. But in  every case, if an arrangement against relief, which other wise would be just,  is  founded  upon mere delay, that  delay  of  course  not amounting to a bar by any statute of limitation’s the validity of that defense must be tried upon principles substantially  equitable. Two circumstances, always important in such cases, are,  the length  of the delay and the nature of the acts done  during  the intervals, which might affect either party and cause a balance of justice  or injustice in taking the one course of the  other,  so far as relates to the remedy.”\n<\/p>\n
 19.  This principle, to my mind, squarely apply to the facts of this  case. There has been considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in  asserting  his  right, if any. It could not have been but deliberate  because  so long  as  Dr.  Shetty remained President pursuance to  the  arrangement  of sharing,  this  petitioner never challenged the same. He knew  that  if  he challenges  the arrangement and elections are ordered to be held  a  fresh, Dr.  Shetty  would revert back as Vice President. The  petitioner  in  that eventuality  would lost the post of Vice President. Therefore, he  did  not challenge the appointment of Dr. Shetty and took advantage of the  arrangement of sharing. Now he cannot turn around and say that the arrangement  to which  he  was party is bad. His challenge now would effect  adversely  the respondent No. 3. Had he challenged the arrangement of sharing is May, 1996 and  succeeded  here would have been fresh elections. The clock  cannot  be turned back. Respondent No. 3 cannot be put back to the same position as he would have been had the petitioner challenged the arrangement in My,  1996. Dr.  Shetty has already availed the benefit of this arrangement and  worked as  President till 18th January, 1998. Dr. Bali in his wildest dream  could not  have imagined or visualized that when his turn would come,  this  petitioner  who took advantage of that arrangement by becoming  Vice  President would challenge that very arrangement after two years or drag him in  litigation. From the facts which have come on record it can safely be concluded that  the petitioner not only accepted the arrangement of sharing but  took advantage  and benefit of the same by becoming Vice President. If  the  arrangement  is bad then there was no vacant post of the Vice  President.  In that  case  his election as Vice President cannot be valid.  Lord  Denning, referring  to what Lord Cairns said in Central London Property  Trust  Ltd. Vs. High Trees House Ltd. (1956) 1 All ER page 256 observed:\n<\/p>\n
       “It  is the first principle upon which all courts of equity  proceed  …  that it will prevent & person from  insisting  on  his strict legal rights – whether arising under a contract or on  his title deeds, or by statute – when it would be inequitable for him to  do  so having regard to the dealings which have  taken  place between the parties.”\n<\/p>\n
 20.  Petition  not  only did not challenge the arrangement but  as  already pointed out took benefit of that arrangement. He along with others  present in  the  House unanimously approved the arrangement. In this  view  of  the matter,  to  my mind this petitioner has no locus standi to  challenge  the appointment of Dr. Bali nor can invoke Regulation No. 35 in support of  his right.  From  15th My, 1996 till January, 1998 this  petitioner  took  full advantage  of the arrangement. He, therefore, is estopped from  challenging the validity of the same being beneficiary of the said arrangement.\n<\/p>\n
 21.  Contention of the petitioner that prior approval of Central Government was required, to my mind, this argument has no force.\n<\/p>\n
 22.  General Body did make a reference to the Central Government for  seeking  solution  to the problem posed by this tie. This seeking  of  solution does  not amount to seeking a decision as envisaged under Section 5 of  the Act. In fact Section 5 of the Act deals with the elections relating to  the categories  mentioned in Section 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d). The mode for  the conduct  of election of the categories as mentioned in Section 3  has  been prescribed in the Regulations. Therefore, the mode or procedure  prescribed for the categories mentioned in Section 3 would not mutates mutants  apply to  the category of elections mentioned in Section 7 of the Act. It  is  in regard  to elections envisaged under Section 3 of tha Act  that  expression “Returning  Officer” has been used, Section 5 since comes after Section  3, therefore, it is presumed that election talked about in Section 5 obviously relate to Section 3 and not to the election of President and Vice President as  provided under Section 7 of the Act. Reading of Regulation  2(f)  which defines “Returning Officer” shows that Legislature had in mind the election of  the categories as mentioned in Section 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d)  of  the Act.  No mode or procedure has been prescribed as to how the  election  for the post of President or Vice President are to be conducted. It has in fact been left to the members of the House or the Council to elect their  President  or  the Vice President either by voice vote, by show of hands  or  by secret ballot. In the absence of any procedure or mode prescribed there  is no  question  of  seeking decision of the Central  Government.  Letter  was written  to the Central Government in order to seek its opinion  only.  The opinion  was expressed by the Minister and covered by the  Government  vide letter  dated 30th April, 1996. Hence there is no violation of  any  provisions of the Act or the Regulation.\n<\/p>\n
 23.  The Central Government through its standing counsel Mr. Rakesh  Tikku, took the stand that sanction was accorded for this arrangement of  sharing. The  Minister  gave  his approval by recording so on the  file.  After  the Minister approved this arrangement. It was conveyed vide letter dated  30th April,  1996 intimating that council’s letter was kept on record. Mr  Madan Bhatia  rightly  contended that this letter of 30th April, 1996 has  to  be interpreted  to  mean that the arrangement of sharing was approved  by  the Central  Government.  Mr.  R. Kohli, counsel for the  Council  stated  that reason for accepting the letter of Central Government dated 30th April 1996 as sanction had a back ground. This was issued after the House  unanimously adopted  and  approved the arrangement of sharing and  the  Minister  after discussion with Dr. Shetty and Dr. Bali suggested the arrangement of  sharing. It was in fact at the intervention of the Minister that arrangement of sharing  was arrived at. This fact that Minister approved  the  arrangement was  got  confirmed by this Court when original file of  the  Ministry  was called.  The  perusal  of the file of the Central  Government  showed  that Minister accorded the sanction to this arrangement and only there after the letter  of 30th April, 1996 was issued. After receipt of this letter  dated 30th April, 1996 that in the meeting of 15th\/16th May, 1996 Dr. Shetty  was declared  President till 18th January, 1998 and the after Dr. Bali  was  to take over as President of the Council. The petitioner never challenged  nor contested  the appointment of Dr. Shetty as President. The  arrangement  of sharing was acceptable to him because he wanted to get elected against  the post to be vacated by Dr. Shetty. Had Dr. Shetty been appointed to  perform the  duties of President as per Regulation No. 35 there would have been  no vacant post of President, hence no question of any election for the post of Vice  President. Petitioner was aware of this position that is why  he  did not challenge the appointment of Dr. Shetty or for that matter  arrangement of sharing.\n<\/p>\n
 24.  Dr.  Bali’s  position  stood altered when the Member  of  the  Council including  the petitioner unanimously approved the arrangement and did  not ask  for  fresh  elections. The conduct of the petitioner is  such  if  his prayer  is accepted it will cause irreparable loss to Dr. Bali,  respondent No.3 Dr. Bali now cannot be put back to the position of May, 1996. The case of  the petitioner is identical to that of Om Prakash Shukla  Vs.  Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors. 1986. (1) SLR 699. In that case Om Prakash appeared  in the  competitive  test without prejudice. He filed the writ  petition  only after  the  realised that the would not be successful in  the  examination. High  Court  accepted  his prayer but the Apex Court  while  reversing  the judgment of the High Court observed that having appeared in the examination and  taken chance in appearing in the examination, he cannot be allowed  to challenge that examination. He was estopped from doing so. Similarly in the present case having accepted the arrangement of sharing and taken advantage of  that arrangement by becoming Vice President, the petitioner  cannot  be allowed  say  that  arrangement is illegal or bad in law. As  per  his  own showing,  he was validly elected as Vice President. Facts remains he  occupied the post of Vice President pursuance to Dr. Shetty becoming  President due to the arrangement of sharing. If petitioner’s election as Vice  President is valid then arrangement of sharing cannot be invalid. Dr. Shetty was elected  as  Vice President in February, 1992. Had he not been  elected  as President  he  would have continued as Vice President till  October,  1998. Then in that case the petitioner had no chance of becoming Vice  President. He  would  have continued as a Member thus having no right to  stake  claim over the post of President. If the arrangement was bad, it was bad in  May, 1996 and arrangement having been implemented, its fruits are being  enjoyed by  petitioner, therefore, cannot now be allowed to challenge the  same  in February, 1998.\n<\/p>\n
 25.  Reliance by the petitioner on the decisions of the Apex Court  namely, Bachhittar Singh (supra) and of Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil (supra) are of  no help to him. The facts in those cases are totally different. In the case in hand  no mode has been prescribed by the Act or the Regulation to show  how election of the President has to be conducted. It is only when the mode  is prescribed  and  there is deviation or breach from the  same  that  dispute deemed  to have arisen which has to be referred to the Central  Government. Since  in  this  case there is no mode or procedure prescribed  as  to  how election of the President has to be conducted hence there was no  necessity to seek prior sanction of the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
 26.  Mr. R.L. Kohli counsel for the Dental Council drew my attention to the expression in Section 6 (5) and Section 6 (1) of the Act and contended that a member whose term might have finished shall continue to be a member until his  successor is elected or nominated and the member of the council  whose term has finished or who may be stated to have vacated it eligible for  reelection  or  re-nomination.  It is in this context that a  member  who  is President  or Vice President or whose term has otherwise finished is  entitled  to seek re-election and continue to his full term of five years.  The conjunctions  of  terms  is, therefore, made permissible.  In  this  regard reference  was  also made to Section 9 and 20 of the Act. No where  in  the Regulation  or  in the Act the Central Government has been given  power  to make regulation per se or act in a manner as superior body not enjoy  planary  powers to conduct the business of the Council nor the Central  Government has been conferred adjudicatory power regarding the functioning of the Council.  The  only provision giving power to the  Central  Government  are noted under Section 54 of the Act which is in the nature of seeking remedial means from a Commission and the other under Section 19 to seek  information from the Council in the nature of minutes of the Executive  Committee, Annual Report and abstract of accounts etc. In the absence of any procedure or  mode  prescribed for the election of President, the provisions  of  appointing  the Returning Officer or of seeking Central Government’s  opinion was neither mandatory nor statutory.\n<\/p>\n
 27.  Having taken advantage of the benefit of getting himself appointed  as the Vice President in the vacancy caused by Dr. Shetty, the petitioner  now cannot  turn around and say that he has a locus standi to be  appointed  as President  by virtue of Regulation No. 35 and that the appointment  of  Dr. Bali  as  President is bad. If arrangement is bad then appointment  of  Dr. Shetty  and Dr. Bali are bad and consequently petitioner’s  appointment  as Vice  President is bad because in that case Dr. Shetty would hold the  post of Vice President till October, 1998. Petitioner in that case has no  locus standi  to invoke Regulation 35 or seek any relief on that basis.  Reliance in this regard can be placed on the observations of this Court in the  case of Umrao Singh Vs. Man Singh & Ors.  which are  reproduced as under ;\n<\/p>\n
       “A  person cannot be allowed to reprobate and approbate  particularly  when he has already taken advantage of the  position.  The principle that a person may not approbate and reprobate expresses two  propositions,  first, that the person in question  having  a choice  between  courses of conduct, is to be treated  as  having made  an election from which he cannot resile, and, second,  that he  will  not be regarded, in general at any rate  as  having  to elected  unless  he has taken a benefit under or arising  of  the course  of conduct which he has first pursued and with which  his subsequent conduct is inconsistent.”\n<\/p>\n
 28.  These  observations  were approved by their Lordships of  the  Supreme Court in the case of Nagubai Ammal Vs. B. Shama, Rao, .\n<\/p>\n
 29.  The  petitioner  had the first choice to question the  arrangement  of sharing. Having not done so and rather participating in the same and having been member of the unanimous Resolution he cannot be allowed to resile from the same because he has taken benefit arising out of the course of  conduct which  he  first perused and which if now allowed the appointment  will  be inconsistent  with  his conduct. Because of this principle,  he  cannot  be allowed  to urge that said arrangement is bad. This principle is  based  on the  Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 16, page 844  paras
\n957 958 which define what is “approbation and reprobation”. It reads:\n<\/p>\n
      957. Approbation and reprobation – On the principal that a person may not approbate and reprobate, a species of estoppel has arisen which  seems  to be intermediate between estoppel by  record  and estoppel  in pais. The principle that a person may not  approbate and reprobate expresses two propositions :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      1.  That  the  person in question, having a  choice  between  two courses  of conduct, is to be treated as having made an  election from which he cannot be reside ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.  That  he  will not be regarded, in general at  any  rate,  as  having so elected unless, he has taken a benefit under or arising out of the course of conduct which he has first pursued and  with which his subsequent conduct is inconsistent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      That  a plaintiff, having two inconsistent claims, who elects  to abandon  one  and pursue the other may note,  in  general,  after wards  choose  to return to the former claim and sue on  it;  but this  rule  of election does not apply where two claims  are  not inconsistent and circumstances do not show an intention to  abandon one of them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Common law principle which puts a person to his election  between alternative  inconsistent  courses of conduct has  no  connection with  the  equitable  doctrine of election  and  relates  mainly, though  not  exclusively to alternative remedies in  a  court  of justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      958.  Examples  of the common law principle of election  –  After taking an advantage under an order a party may be precluded  from saying  that  it is invalid and asking to set it aside,  or  from setting up to the prejudice of persons who have relied upon it  a case inconsistent with that upon which it was founded. He may not be  allowed to go behind an order made in ignorance of the  true, facts to the prejudice of third parties who have acted on it; nor will  a judgment creditor who, after succeeding  in  interpleader proceedings,  takes out of court money paid into court as  representing the value of the goods to abide the event.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 30.  From the reading of the above paras, it gets clear that petitioner  is precluded  from  saying that arrangement of sharing is invalid as  he  took advantage of this arrangement of sharing by getting himself elected as Vice President and then keeping it quite till Dr. Shetty remained President.\n<\/p>\n
 31.  The contention of Mr. Vikas Singh Dr. Shetty had “colorable  authority” or some colour of title to the post of President. This argument has  no force. If Dr. Shetty had acted as the President on basis of Regulation  35, this argument could have some substance. But that is not the case in  hand. Dr. Shetty did not take up the position of President on the de-facto  principle or colorable authority of being the Vice President. He was  declared to  be President on the basis of election held on 6th November, 1995.  This arrangement  of  sharing  was evolved at the intervention  of  the  Central Government through its Minister who had the authority to accord sanction on behalf  of the Central Government. He is estopped from the challenging  the same.  Regarding estoppel it is said that though it may cause injustice  if misapplied,  in rightly applied it is founded upon reason and justice,  and is  a principle of good morals as well as of law and that it often  enables right and justice to triumph where nothing else known to jurisprudence  can do  so. It is a means of repose. It promotes fair dealing.  Its  operation, secure  those ends. Like the State of Limitation, it is a conservator,  and without  it society could not well go on. It was so said by Swayne,  J.  in the case of Daniels Vs. Tearney, (1880) 102 U.S. 415, 422, 26 L.ed. 187. In the  case  of Charles Rickards Ltd. Vs. Openhaim (1950) 1  K.B.  616,  623 Denning L.J. said:\n<\/p>\n
      “Whether  it  be called waive or for bearance on his part  or  an agreed variation or substituted performance, does not matter.  It is a kind of estoppel. By his conduct be evinced an intention  to affect  their legal relations. He made, in effect, a promise  not to  insist on his strict legal rights. That promise was  intended to be acted on, and was in fact acted on. He cannot afterwards go back on it.”\n<\/p>\n
      Waiver proceeds on the basis that a man not under legal disability is the best judge of his own interest and if with knowledge of a  right  or privilege conferred on him by Statute,  contract  or otherwise for his benefit, he intentionally gives up the right or privilege, or chooses not to do so.\n<\/p>\n
 32.  In  the  present  case, the petitioner had a right  to  challenge  the arrangement  of  sharing.  He was not under any obligation  to  accept  the arrangement.  But  he did not challenge nor protested rather  accepted  the same by contesting the election of Vice president consequent on Dr.  Shetty vacating the post of Vice President. Therefore at this stage, he cannot now contend  that though his election is valid as Vice President but the  election  of  Dr. Shetty and Dr. Bali as President is bad in law. In  fact  the principle of waiver and estoppel squarely apply in the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
 33.  That  there  is no quarrel with the proposition stated  by  Mr.  Vikas Singh that the estoppel cannot legitimately give authority and powers which does not in law possess. In other words, no estoppel can legitimate  action which  is ultra vires. Admittedly no waiver of right no consent or  private bargain can give an authority or power nor can legitimate its action if  it is  illegal or bad in law. But as already pointed above, since no  mode  or procedure  has been prescribed either under the Act or the  Regulation  for the election of the President or Vice President, therefore, no question  of referring the matter to Central Government for its decision nor the Council was under any obligation to await the declaration by the Returning Officer. Even  otherwise, in this case there was no dispute. The tangle was the  tie between  Dr.  Shetty  and Dr. Bali hence in the absence  of  any  procedure prescribed as to how this problem could be solved the Council solicited the opinion  of  the  Central Government. But seeking of  this  opinion  by  no stretch  of imagination would mean that Council referred this matter  as  a dispute  to  be settled by the Central Government. Since the  Council  only sought opinion as to how to solve the tangle arisen because of the tie that does  not  mean that the decision of the Central  Government  was  binding. Moreover,  Central Government through its counsel Mr. Rakesh  Tikku  fairly conceded  before  this Court that the Central Government accepted  the  arrangement  so  sharing by keeping the letter of the Council on  record  and conveyed  the same vide its letter dated 30th April, 1996  intimating  that arrangement  of  sharing has been kept on record.  The  Central  Government means  the Ministry concerned and in this case the Ministry of Health.  The Minister  of Health accorded approval to the arrangement of  sharing.  This fact  was ascertained from the original file produced by Mr.  Rakesh  Tikku. Thus the arrangement had the blessing of the Central Government. The  election  has not been set aside on account of this arrangement of sharing  but on account of the alleged irregularities. Therefore, so far as the arrangement  of  sharing is concerned, it had the necessary sanction  of  all  the concerned  authorities. This is how the Council understood. This was  known to the petitioner who was present in the House which met on 15th\/16th  May, 1996  and unanimously approved the arrangement of sharing. He having  taken advantage now cannot be allowed to challenge the same nor can be allowed to say  that right vest in him pursuance to Regulation 35 to act as  President instead of respondent No.3. From his conduct and the facts which have  come on  record, it is clear that the arrangement of sharing arrived at  between Dr.  Shetty and Dr. Bali was approved by the house unanimously and  in  the absence  of any Regulations prescribing the procedure for the elections  of President this arrangement of sharing mutually arrived with the blessing of the Central Government cannot be but valid, binding and legal.\n<\/p>\n
 34.  For  the reasons stated above, I find no merits in the petition.  Dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998 Equivalent citations: 75 (1998) DLT 200, 1999 (48) DRJ 71 Author: U Mehra Bench: U Mehra ORDER Usha Mehra, J. 1. Petitioner, Dr. C. Bhaskara Rao was elected as Vice President of the Dental Council of India (hereinafter […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998 - 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\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-18T13:45:51+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=\"48 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T13:45:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998\"},\"wordCount\":9711,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998\",\"name\":\"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T13:45:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998 - 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\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-18T13:45:51+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":"48 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T13:45:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998"},"wordCount":9711,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998","name":"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T13:45:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-bhaskar-rao-dr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-24-august-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C. Bhaskar Rao (Dr.) vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 August, 1998"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/42220","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=42220"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42220\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}