ORDER 1. Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner in WP No. 986 of 2009, Mr. Ashok Lalwani, Advocate for the petitioner in WP No. 1040 of 2009, and Mr. V.K. Tankha, Senior Advocate for petitioner in WP No. 1092 of 2009. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. Mohan Sonsarkar, Advocate accepts notice for respondents Union of India and Dental Council of India. 3. Mr. Jaideep Singh, Dy. Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Slate of Madhya Pradesh and the Director, Medical Education, M.P. 4. Mr. P.K. Kaurav, Advocate accepts notice for the respondent Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, Bhopal. 5. Mr. Naman Nagrath, Advocate accepts notice for the respondent Association of Private Dental and Medical Colleges of M.P. 6. Mr. A.P. Shroti, Advocate accepts notice for the respondent Peoples College of Dental Science, Bhopal. 7. Copies of the writ petitions be served by the petitioners on the counsel for the respondents by 2.2.2009. 8. In these writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the provision in the Dental Council of India. Revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007 (for short 'the Regulations of 2007') that in nongovernmental institutions, 50% of the total seats shall be filled by the Competent Authority and the remaining 50% by the management of the institution on the basis of merit has been challenged. 9. Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner in WP No. 1092 of 2009, who led the arguments on behalf of the learned counsel appearing in all the three writ petitions, submitted that in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 6 SCC 537 , the Supreme Court in para 124 at page 601 of the SCC has held that the State has no power to insist on seat sharing in unaided private professional educational institutions by fixing the quota of seats between the management of the institution and the State. He also relied on para 130 of the aforesaid judgment in P.A. Inamdar at page 602 of the SCC, in which the Seven Judges Bench did not approve the scheme evolved in Islamic Academy of Education, (2003) 6 SCC 697 to allow the States to fix quota for seat sharing between the management of the unaided private professional educational institutions and the States on the basis of local needs of each State of both minority and non-minority categories. Mr. Mr. Tankha further submitted that the Regulations of 2007 have been made under section 20 of the Dentist Act, 1948 and there is no provision in the Dentist Act, 1948 empowering fixation of seat sharing between the State and private unaided institution and, therefore, the provision in the Regulations of 2007 that in a non-governmental institution, 50% of the total seats shall be filled by the Competent Authority and the remaining 50% by the management of the institution on the basis of merit in ultravires the Dentist Act, 1948. 10. Mr. Mohan Sonsarkar, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India as well as Dental Council of India, on the other hand, submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in an order dated 16.5.2008 passed in WP No. 3830 of 2008 and WP No. 4105 of 2008 has directed the Dental Council of India and the State Government to act in harmony and try to give effect to the impugned provision in the Regulations of 2007 so as to provide that 50% of the seats are filled up by the management of the institutions on the basis of merit and 50% of the seats are filled up by the Competent Authority. Mr. Sonsarkar also prayed for some time to obtain instructions and file a reply. 11. Prima-facie, it appears that the impugned provision in the Regulations of 2007 providing that 50% of the total seats in non-governmental institutions shall be filled up by the Competent Authority and the remaining 50% by the institutions on the basis of merit is in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar, referred to above. Moreover, no provision in the Dentist Act, 1948 also has been brought to our notice to show that the Act empowers seat sharing in private unaided dental institutions by the State and the managements of the institutions and in the absence of such a provisions in the Dentist Act, 1948, the impugned provision in the Regulations of 2007, which are made to carry out the purpose of the Act would be ultra-vires. This is, however, our prima facie view and this prima-facie view is subject to final decision in these writ petitions. 12. This is, however, our prima facie view and this prima-facie view is subject to final decision in these writ petitions. 12. Considering our aforesaid prima-facie view, we direct that the provision in the impugned Regulation, in so far as it relates to the State of Madhya Pradesh, shall remain stayed and the admissions in the private unaided institutions in MDS course which are to commence shortly, will be made in accordance with the M.P. Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Samstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulka Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 made by the State Legislature of Madhya Pradesh and the Admission Rules, 2008 made thereunder by the State Government within the time schedule as provided under the law. 13. Since the M.P. Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Samstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulka Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 made by the State Legislature of Madhya Pradesh and the Admission Rules, 2008 are under challenge before this Court by some parties in some writ petitions, such admissions shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in such writ petitions pending before this Court. 14. We further direct that the Dental Council of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh will move the Division Bench in WP No. 3830 of 2008 and WP No. 4105 of 2008 for appropriate order considering the order passed by this Court today staying the impugned provision.