Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATISH CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Satish Chaturvedi v. State Of U.P. and others - WRIT - C No. 32844 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 5987 (18 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 9

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32844 of 1997

Satish Chaturvedi

Vs.

State of U.P. and others

*********

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

We have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey holding brief of Sri M.K. Gupta for petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for State respondents; Sri Kapil Rathore for the Principal, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Sri M.B. Saxena amicus curiae.

Dr. P.C. Saxena, Principal, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, is present in person. He has also been heard.

Having heard all the parties, we issue following further directions to,

A. THE STATE GOVERNMENT

On the last occasion we had referred to the report dated 29.8.2005 submitted by Sri G.K. Chaturvedi, Registrar (Budget) which had highlighted some basic problems relating to paucity of funds existing in the SRN Hospital and the Children Hospital and they related to sewerage, security, sanitation, laundry, annual maintenance contract/contingency and building maintenance. It has been pointed out that the matter relating to laundry has been resolved but for sewerage, security and sanitation serious problems exist because of lack of funds.

In the aforesaid report of the Registrar (Budget) it was pointed out that a total amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- was required for the new sewerage line in the Medical College but an amount of Rs. 16,88,000/- was only sanctioned as a result of which the work could not be started by the Jal Nigam. Learned Standing Counsel in this context has pointed out that a letter dated 22.9.2005 was sent by the Director General, Medical and Health, Lucknow to the Principal seeking certain details of the project in response to which a detailed letter was sent by the Principal of the Medical College but thereafter nothing has been done. The problem regarding sewerage is a serious problem, which has to be tackled immediately. The matter has been pending for a sufficiently long period and the delay is causing serious hygienic problems apart from the fact that other repair works are being held up on this account. We, therefore, direct that the balance amount of about Rs. 52,00,000/- should be immediately sanctioned within a period of two weeks from today and the amount be thereafter sent to the Medical College so that the Jal Nigam may start the work and complete it expeditiously.

For the security of the Medical College, SRN Hospital, MD Eye Hospital and the Children Hospital it has been indicated in the report of the Registrar (Budget) that an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- is required per year. We have been informed that the State Government has not sanctioned any amount and has merely written to the Principal of the Medical College that the amount appears to be excessive by comparing it with the amount in respect of some other Medical College. The Security of the Medical College is equally important and details have been indicated. Opportunity was also given to the State by our order dated 9.9.2005 to file objections if there was any factual infirmity but nothing specific has been pointed out and only general averments have been made in the letter produced by the learned Standing Counsel. We, therefore, have no hesitation in directing that the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/-, for which details have already been submitted, be also immediately sanctioned by the State Government within a period of two weeks from today and sent to the Medical College.

Learned Standing Counsel shall also indicate to the Court on the next date of listing the decision taken by the State for release of funds in respect of the annual maintenance contract, recurring expenditure/contingency and building maintenance. These are separate accounting heads and should not be clubbed together with maintenance (Anurakshan). We do not see how the costly medical equipment can be maintained under the small amount sanctioned for building maintenance. The State Government shall take into consideration the estimates of the College and sanction these amounts separately.  

We have been informed that in respect of the inspection of the Medical College by the Medical Council of India, a letter was sent by the State Government to the Medical Council for postponement of the inspection. We are surprised as to why such a letter should have been sent when the Medical College had already submitted the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Medical Council of India towards inspection fees. Let Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Additional Advocate General explain on the next date of listing why the inspection of the Medical College was required to be postponed.

We had passed a detailed order on 3.8.2005 regarding the Mortuary. A committee was constituted and a report was required to be submitted with a detailed project of a ''Modern Mortuary' and the time schedule within which the construction would be completed. We have been informed that the estimated costs of building a ''Modern Mortuary' had been submitted to the State Government but the amount has not been sanctioned. It is only on the request made by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State Government that such an order was passed on 3.8.2005. We, therefore, direct that the necessary sanction to the estimated budget should be given at the earliest so that the construction of the "Modern Mortuary" may start thereafter. Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Additional Advocate General, State of U.P. shall indicate the progress made in this matter on the next date of listing.

We have also been informed that the State Government is sending PMS doctors on deputation as teachers to the Medical College. This is clearly not permissible and even otherwise it is difficult to conceive how these doctors would be able to contribute to the teaching work in the Medical College. We, therefore, restrain the State Government from sending any PMS doctor to the Medical College on deputation and if such PMS doctors have not already joined the Medical College, then they shall also not be permitted to join. Let the State Government file an affidavit to show under what authority of law and for what reason it has sent these PMS doctors to the Medical College on deputation so that the decision in regard to the PMS doctors who have been sent on deputation  and have joined the Medical College can be taken by this Court. Such an affidavit should be filed by the next date of listing.

By our order dated 11.3.2005 we had constituted a Committee for reviewing the progress of medical services in the Hospital. The Committee was required to hold meetings every month to monitor and supervise improvements, make recommendations and submit its report to the Court. These reports, however, have not been submitted to the Court. We, therefore, remind the Chairman of the Committee and the Convener of the meeting to regularly submit the reports to the Court. We are further of the opinion that such meeting must be held every month and since the report has to be submitted in respect of the Medical College, it is desirable that the Committee should meet in the Medical College itself so that the members have first hand knowledge, inspect the progress, monitor and supervise more effectively.    

B. THE UP PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALLAHABAD.

The matter relating to the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad shall be taken up on the next date of listing.

C. THE PRINCIPAL AND CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT

While dealing with this issue, we had passed a detailed order on 9.9.2005 requiring all the teachers of the Medical College to submit an undertaking to the State Government through the Principal of the Medical College in respect of the following:-

(A) That they are not engaged in private practice and that in future also they shall not do any private practice and that they shall attend to the duties assigned to them in the Hospital by the Principal of the Medical College.

(B) They shall disclose the assets possessed by them and the income tax return filed by them at the time they entered service and the assets they now possess and the last income tax return filed by them.

(C) They shall declare whether they or their spouse or their parents or their children or other close relatives own any Nursing Homes, Diagnostic Centres or Clinics.

Such an undertaking disclosure and declaration was required to be filed within a period of one month from the date of the order before the Principal of the Medical College. The Principal .of the Medical College has stated that only about 50% of the doctors have submitted the undertakings inspite of the fact that three notices were circulated by him on 16.9.2005, 27.9.2005 and 15.10.2005.  The attitude of the teachers who have not submitted the undertaking is nothing but defiance of the order passed by this Court and we propose to deal with it seriously.  The Principal has also not placed before the Court the undertakings submitted by the teachers of the Medical College even though our order dated 9.9.2005 required him to do so. We, therefore, direct that on the next date of listing the Principal of the Medical College shall not only give a complete list of all the teachers of the Medical College but also specify such of the teachers who have submitted the undertaking disclosure and declaration, within time, those who have submitted if beyond the time stipulated along with the explanation for delay, if any, and those who have not submitted them at all. Such undertakings disclosures and declarations shall also be made available on the next date of listing for perusal of the Court.

We also direct the District Magistrate, Allahabad to submit a list of all such teachers of the Medical College who are engaged in private practice with details of clinics, nursing homes, hospitals and diagnostic centers run by them by the next date of listing. Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Additional Advocate General shall intimate our order to the District Magistrate, Allahabad.

In our order dated 9.9.2005 we had suggested to Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Additional Advocate General that the Government should consider the feasibility of giving an option to the patients to either pay Rupee 1/- or Rs. 5/- as user charges and there should be separate account and windows for receipt of these user charges. We have been informed that the Government has, pursuant to our order, informed the Principal of the Medical College that a decision in respect of payment of user charges had been taken earlier and so a fresh decision was not required.  It appears that our order has been misunderstood. We had not asked the Government to increase the user charges from Rupee 1/- to Rs. 5/- but in our order we had clearly indicated that the payment of Rs. 5/- towards the user charges should be at the option of the patients. By deposit of Rs. 5/- as user charges, no additional facilities are required to be given to these patients except to the extent that there would be separate windows for those patients who desired to deposit Rs. 5/- towards user charges and those who desired to deposit Rupee 1/- only. We feel that such a proposal would be in the interest of the Medical College and, therefore, we direct that such a procedure should be adopted henceforth.

The Allahabad University is now a Central University. One important aspect for which a decision is to be taken is whether the Medical College would acquire the Central Status along with the University or it would continue to remain with the State Government. This decision should be taken by the authorities concerned at the earliest so that decision on other important matters can also be taken. We, therefore, direct the Competent Authority to take a final decision in this matter positively within a period of three weeks from today. In this regard we direct that Union of India, through Secretary HRD, New Delhi, University Grants Commission, and Allahabad University be impleaded as party respondents in the writ petition and copies of the petition and the orders be served upon them.  

D. THE U.P. POWER CORPORATION

We have issued specific directions in respect of this matter in our order dated 9.9.2005. The required report has not been submitted to the Court as yet. Let it be submitted by the next date of listing.

E. MANOHAR DAS EYE HOSPITAL

Due to paucity of time, we have not been able to take up this issue today but we have been informed that a lot of garbage is lying in front of the M.D. Eye Hospital. The Nagar Nigam, Allahabad is directed to ensure that the garbage in front of the M.D. Eye Hospital is immediately removed and such removal of garbage should be ensured regularly in future.

The orders keeping eviction of the Medical Stores and P.C.O. in abeyance and the order dated 3rd August, 2005 in respect of the Mortuary shall continue to operate till the next date of listing.

We must also make it clear to all the counsel and parties that the reports and affidavits required to be filed pursuant to the directions issued by the Court must be filed at least three days in advance so that there is sufficient time to examine the matter. These directions are being issued because it is seen that usually such reports are directly filed in the Court on the date when the matter is taken up and at times even letters are produced before the Court.

List this matter on 2.12.2005 at 1.45 PM.

Let a copy of this order be made available to all the counsel appearing in the matter free of charges.

Dt/- 18.11.2005

Sharma


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.