[2025:RJ-JP:20987] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15204/2024 Dr. Vikash Jeph Son Of Sh. K.l.mina, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Gokul Vatika, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur- 302018. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Department Of Medical And Health, Through Director, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Returning Officer, Rajasthan State Dental Council, Jaipur Office At, Ruhs College Of Dental Sciences, Subhash Nagar, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur. 4. Rajasthan State Dental Council, Jaipur, Ruhs College Of Dental Sciences, Through Its Registrar, Subhash Nagar, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Dental Council Of India, National Dental Commission, Building, Through Its Registrar Plot No. 14, Sector-9, R.k.puram, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mahender Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Angad Mirdha Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/05/2025 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “A. Set aside the notification dated 04.09.2024 issued by the respondent No.3. [2025:RJ-JP:20987] (2 of 3) [CW-15204/2024] B. Set aside the letter dated 28.12.2023 issued by dental council of India. C. Issue direction for issuance of fresh notification for election to be held in accordance with the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 2019. D. Pass any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the interest of justice in Favour of the Petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, several prayers have been made. 3. Reply to the writ petition has been submitted by the respondent Nos.3 & 4 wherein a preliminary objection has been taken with regard to maintainability of this writ petition. 4. As per Section 26 of the Dentists Act, 1948 and Rule 23 of the Rajasthan State Dental Council Rules, 2008, an alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned by way of filing representation. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition is not maintainable where alternative statutory remedy is available to a person and such person cannot be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the said statutory authority. 6. On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned by way of filing representation in light of the aforesaid provisions. 7. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, ig any) also stand disposed of. 8. In case, any such representation is submitted by the petitioner before the authorities concerned within a period of 15 days from today, it is expected from the authorities concerned to hear and decide the same on its merits after affording due [2025:RJ-JP:20987] (3 of 3) [CW-15204/2024] opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter, strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/71