In Brief
A dental practitioner challenged his one-year suspension of registration, arguing the Dentists Act, 1948 only permits removal (not suspension) from register. He also contended he followed proper government scheme procedures for treating 281 children with orthodontic appliances. The Court held that suspension is a form of removal for a limited period, and the regulatory authority's subjective finding that he violated professional conduct standards (by treating patients without genuine clinical necessity to gain financial benefit) is valid. The petitioner has a statutory appeal remedy before the State Government; without grounds to interfere, the petition was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.