i(SS "^ <"', IN THE HIGH COURr OF CHHA'ITISGAKH : BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 200 of 2005 PetLtioner Mm.or Uaurav GaaeuM, S/o Shri T. K. Gaiigiili, Aged about 13 years (Through tiis Ijuai'dui), K/o MlU-li/aiy, Huuco, Aanid.1 Na"ar. Bhilai. District Dura'C.G, versus Respondents 1. State of Chhat&sgarh, Through the i. p'tm-'iTT >J, A <I2o./->-r-0+r-iT^ir r^»a-t^Q-r+-mia-r^-f- <^-F T^iai -J'^-^-A ^'£--'"4^. ^ y X^ ^-]^<.i-*. l^U^&.'^-JL^ t. ^-/-L J.A^-" Welfare Maiitralaya, D.K.S. Bhawaa, Raipirr fC.G.) \^' -'•} The CoUector/District Magistrate, District Durg, DuTg(C.G.) Superiatendent of Police, District Durg, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Dr. Rncstnm R. QinTl7011n PTT3^J/4flrit 'l ^.\. ^L'^t i^^/^JLl. ±^^* ^^^LJL^fr L.I.^—^-L^ .1. ^ ^/•-J^^a-</-i-^.i. ^. ^ l.-£^f Treatuient Cliaics, iABE, yituated at 68, Motilal Nehru Nagar (Old), Near Agrassen Chowk, Brulai, Ctthattisgarh. Penaaaent Address Dr. Rustoin B. GinwaUa President TABE Treatuient Clnics (Puiie), Choice Apartments, 2nd Floor, Flat No. 'C' Qn-'i 204 Near Ruby Hall Hospital, Dhole PatU Road, Pune (Maharashtra) P1N -411 001 WKri' PETI'riOiM UNDER AR'I'ICLE 226/2^7 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN QFJNDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnitiotri J.) ^TTIT*! Ali^lf- T~\faiK70-n rva-n A/^srQ<«3f-j= iR^"f +T^(=> Ti^a+'ifT^T1>flT' ^^tjL^J-JL J. ^--L^-l?^^. A—f'-'^t ^ t^t-1—^'C-t—^^ - A.\-S. V L^^-^-/t--t.l/<-' JL'l-/^. K^l^r^^ ^n-^/ l-A^^-^/JLJL^/A * Sliri Snashank i'&akur, Pauel Lawyer the respondents No. 1 to 3/State. None fbr ttie respondent No.4. n p np- R (Passed on fhis 16th Day ofOctober, 2008) With the consent of learaed counsel appearing for the parties, the inatter is heard finally. Leamed counsel appeariap for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggneved by the act of the respondent No.4 - Dr. Rustom. B. Giawalla, on accoiint of ill treatment ineted out to tiie petiti.oner, which resulteu into loss of nioveality of the petitioner. Learued counsel tui-ther subuuts ttiat the petitioner lias attempted to lodge a complaint in. som.e pojice station, t~I: 3. Thakur - T-- whlch has neitaer averred ui the petition nor stated by the counsel appearing for the pedtioner. The petitioner turther ciairas coiupensation without enquiiy about the alleged negligence on the part of the doctor. No coiupensation cau be grauted without establisliing ttie fact of negUgence on fae part of the doctor aud since no report has been loclged with the police statioa, as welt as no coinplaint has been. lodged with Uie ruagistrate, no action can be taken in this petition. Ihus fhe petition 1s m.eritless. It is disinissed, accordiagly. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to ruake a proper coniplauit, it so advlsed, betbre ttie concenied Mstflistrate, ia tfae event, tfae peutioner has aay grievance against the conduct ofttie doctor. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri ; Judge