Saurabh Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ

The Petitioner has moved this Court with the following prayers :

10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.04.2021.

10.2 Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.

The case as put-forth by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that as per the impugned order, the 3rd Respondent has restrained the

Respondents No.4 to 7 Private Hospitals in the District Korba from admitting any patient who belongs to 'other districts' in the above Hospitals without

the permission of the District Collector / 2 nd Respondent and further that, if any patient is admitted without permission of the District Collector, the

sanction given to the Hospitals for treatment of COVID-19 patients shall stand cancelled.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that there is no power or authority with the CMHO to have issued Annexure P/2 order defeating

the right of patients of the neighbouring States or such other districts to get proper treatment. It is also pointed out that the Apex Court has passed an

order on 30.04.2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2021 whereby it has been specifically made clear that no patient shall be denied treatment

in any State with reference to the place of residence or insisting the proof of residence within the State. It is further stated that the necessity to admit

the patients depends upon the condition of the patient and this is to be decided by the Doctor and not by anybody else. Any failure in giving proper and

timely treatment to the patients may be fatal and as such, the necessity to obtain permission of the District Collector who is having no expertise in

treatment of patients is totally arbitrary and hence, requires interference.

The learned Advocate General submits that issuance of Annexure P/2 order was necessitated because of some particular facts and circumstances

prevailing in the area and the practice being followed by the Respondent-Hospitals, which virtually resulted in denying proper treatment to genuine

patients. It is however brought to the notice of this Court that the said order was subsequently withdrawn by the 3 rd Respondent as per order dated

30.04.2021, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure D/1 along with covering memo dated 04.05.2021.

We find it appropriate to have the above order reproduced below for easy reference :

In view of the above turn of events, we find that no further order is called for as the impugned order has already been withdrawn. The factual

position as above is recorded and the writ petition stands disposed of.