Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 61675 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20003 (24 November 2006)

 

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

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This matter has been received by us by nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Heard Shri K.N. Yadav and Shri R.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner claims himself to be social worker and a member of the elected Gram Panchayat.  By this writ petition he has prayed for a direction to the respondents to decide his representation and to take appropriate action against respondent No.4.

The representation with prayer to transfer Dr. Jagdish Singh, MOIC, PHC, Maharaj Gaanj, Azamgarh seeks his transfer on the complaints that he has posted at PHC for more than 7 years, he charges Rs.500/- from the poor patients for attending them at the Center and Rs.1500/- for delivery.   Those patients, who cannot pay are turn out of the Center.    He has been thrice transferred from the place, but allows to remain at the same place under the protection of local political leaders.

A citizen has right to complain about the misconduct of a Government servant and also request for his transfer.   This right, however, cannot be exercised indirectly by approaching the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for transfer by way of the relief of disposal of representation.  The High Court should not encourage citizen to use the platform of judicial redressal of rights, to entertain complaints and prayers of transfer against Government servant.  

We find no reason to accept the submissions that the Director General, Medical & Health, U.P., who is not impleaded as party to the writ petition, will not look into the matter.

The writ petition is dismissed with the observations made above.

Dt.24.11.2006

GS/SP/W.P.61675/06


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.