IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16788 of 2009 1. DHARMENDRA KUMAR S/O MADHUSHUDAN PRASAD, R/O MOH- MAHI KHANDAK, SUNDERGARH, P.S- BIHAR SHARIF, DISTT- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL), BIHAR SHARIF, DISTT- NALANDA 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIHAR SHARIF, DISTT- NALANDA 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BIHAR SHARIF, DISTT- NALANDA 7. THE CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF ----------- 02. 10.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The wife of the petitioner was suffering from Brain Tumor. The petitioner was incurring expenses beyond his means. He gave an application on 18.5.2007 to the District Magistrate and the Civil Surgeon for monetary grant to enable him to pursue medical treatment of his wife. His application specifically stated that he was a person below the poverty line. This led to the constitution of a medical Board which examined his wife on 24.5.2007. The Board recommended the grant of the admissible amount of Rs.25,000/- for such treatment as per Memo No. 2353 (14) dated 12.9.2006. The Civil Surgeon on 28.5.2007 forwarded this recommendation to the District Welfare Officer. It is the case of the 2 petitioner that this amount sanctioned never came to be disbursed to him and he arranged money by private sources to pursue his wife’s treatment. She unfortunately expired on 10.6.2007. The counter affidavit of the respondents state that at a meeting held on 19.7.2007 consisting of the Deputy Development Commissioner, the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer and others, the case of the petitioner was also considered. But no fund could be released as he did not furnish necessary proof of being below the poverty line. Where human life is concerned, it calls for sensitivity. An individual need not wait to undergo personal pain before appreciating the sensitivity required towards human life. Unfortunately, the officials of the State do not seem to be believing in the same. The petitioner gave an application that he was below the poverty line and therefore needed money for his wife treatment. It stand to reason that the District Magistrate and the Civil Surgeon did not act mechanically without application of mind before directing him to bring his wife before a Medical Board. The connotation by application of any human sense is that they were satisfied of his claim of being below the poverty line and then only asked him to produce his 3 wife before the medical Board. As otherwise, if they were not satisfied that the petitioner below the poverty line they would never have recommended her case to the medical Board with reference to a particular Government letter. The Civil Surgeon, who was thus satisfied that the petitioner was below the poverty line raked up the issue again in the meeting dated 19.7.2007. If he was a member of the committee, the least that he could have done was explained in the meeting under what circumstances and how he directed her appearance before a medical Board and made a recommendation to the District Welfare Officer based on the report of the medical Board satisfied of her status below the poverty line. The counter affidavit very casually suggests that the patient expired barely 12 days later and that it was too short a time keeping in mind bureaucratic apathy where issues of human life and its sensitivity have no concern. This Court holds that the conduct of the respondents is severely wanting. The petitioner has stated that he has incurred expenses on the treatment of his wife. Perhaps no proof is of his expense required. The medical Board was satisfied of her illness. She either expired during treatment or in absence of grant of funds to undertake treatment for paucity of funds. 4 In both events, State and its officials are liable. Let the grant as approved of Rs. 25,000/- be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of 10 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Nalanda. This Court further directs the District Magistrate to hold an enquiry and the circumstances under which the petitioner, notwithstanding an administrative decision was kept deprived of the grant which may have had its own consequences for his wife. The Court expects the District Magistrate to display adequate sensitivity to the issue of human life and take appropriate administrative/disciplinary action against those whom he may find whose conduct may be wanting. The application stands allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)