https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305951 The Dental Council was competent to prescribe, by regulation, attachment of a proposed dental college with a medical college because Section 10A and Section 20 of the Dentists Act authorised additional prescribed factors for consideration. The amended Regulation 6(2)(h) was also not manifestly arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), as it had a rational nexus with maintaining teaching standards, clinical exposure, and faculty support, and treated existing institutions and new applicants as distinct classes. The Division Bench should not have entertained a renewed challenge seeking reconsideration after the same relief had already been refused in earlier proceedings. The challenge therefore failed and the regulatory requirement was upheld. en-us Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Dec 2022 08:43:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305951 The Dental Council was competent to prescribe, by regulation, attachment of a proposed dental college with a medical college because Section 10A and Section 20 of the Dentists Act authorised additional prescribed factors for consideration. The amended Regulation 6(2)(h) was also not manifestly arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), as it had a rational nexus with maintaining teaching standards, clinical exposure, and faculty support, and treated existing institutions and new applicants as distinct classes. The Division Bench should not have entertained a renewed challenge seeking reconsideration after the same relief had already been refused in earlier proceedings. The challenge therefore failed and the regulatory requirement was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305951