CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3324 of 2003 --------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. --------- Md. Abdul Baqui, son of late Syed Wasim Uddin, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barh, P.S. Barh, District- Patna ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary to Government Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Secretary to Government Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar New Secretariat, Building, Patna. 4. The Deputy Director, Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. .... .... Respondents. ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Chandra Giri, & Mr. Suman Kumar Singh. For the Respondents : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, A.C. to AAG 14. For Accountant General: Mr. Madhuresh Prasad. -------------- P R E S E N T HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN S.K.Katriar,J. This writ petition has been preferred with the 2 prayer to quash the sanction order dated 10.1.2003 (Annexure 15), whereby the State Government has accorded sanction for payment of the bill for treatment of the petitioner’s daughter at reduced rate, and for further relief of payment of the entire bill amount. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned order. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, a Subordinate Judge in the Bihar judiciary, and has superannuated as Additional District Judge on 31.10.2005. His daughter was, at the relevant point of time, aged 21 years and was suffering from heart ailment. She had undergone check-up on 30.6.1998, at Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology, Patna, a medical establishment of the Government of Bihar, and was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “A.I.I.M.S”), a medical establishment of the Government of India. She under-went thorough medical check-up at A.I.I.M.S, New Delhi, in the last week of October 1998, and was 3 diagnosed to be a case of Atrial Septal Defect, and was advised closure of the same by surgical intervention. She was provisionally given a date for surgery on first week of January 2000. Relevant portion of O.P.D. slip dated 26.4.1999 of A.I.I.M.S is reproduced hereinbelow: “Date of surgery to be awarded after Dec.99, probably in first week of Jan. Rx.(i) T.Lasebactone 50mg ½ OD 2. T.Wasprin ½ O.D. Sd/- 26.4.99.” 3. It further appears from the certificate dated 26.10.1998 (Annexure-4), issued by A.I.I.M.S, that the surgery involved expenditure of approximately Rs.2,10,000/- (Two Lacs ten thousand only), excluding medicines and boarding. By order dated 24.11.1998 (Annexure-7), the State Government, in the Department of Health and Medical Education, accorded sanction for treatment of the petitioner’s daughter at A.I.I.M.S. In anticipation of the surgery, the petitioner applied for medical advance which was sanctioned by the State Government and he had withdrawn Rs.1,68,000/- on 13th March 1999. The petitioner felt dissatisfied with the affairs in A.I.I.M.S and, therefore, had submitted his representation dated 3.5.1999 (Annexure-9), to accord 4 permission for treatment at a private hospital. 4. The representation remained unattained. The petitioner’s daughter was operated for the same ailment at B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre, Calcutta, on 21.10.2000, and was discharged. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 98,792/- to the hospital for surgery, investigation charges etc. as per the bill dated 21.8.2001 (Annexure-10). He paid a further sum of Rs.22,000/- for the following items, vide receipt dated 21.8.2001 (Annexure-10): “ Surgeon : Rs.9,000.00 Surgeon asst : Rs.4.500.00 Anaesthetist : Rs.4,000.00 Anaesthetist asst. Rs.2,000.00 Physician : Rs.1,500.00 Perfusionist : Rs. 900.00 ---------------------- Total: Rs. 22,000.00 5. The petitioner thereafter submitted his representation dated 14.9.2001, to the Director of Health Services, seeking Post Facto approval for treatment at Calcutta, and also to accord sanction for payment of Rs.1,32,650/-, which included the aforesaid payment made to the hospital, and further sum of Rs.11,868/- spent over journey of the patient and attendant by train. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, by the impugned 5 order, has accorded sanction, but payment of Rs. 46,720/- only, and impugned herein. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position is that the State Government had accorded sanction for surgery at A.I.I.M.S., New Delhi. It is further evident that assessment of expenses at A.I.I.M.S. was Rs. 2,10,000/-, excluding expenses over medicines and boarding. The petitioner submitted medical bill for a total sum of Rs. 1,20,792/- excluding journey expenses, which is clearly less than the assessment of expenses at A.I.I.M.S. for which sanction was accorded. We are, therefore, unable to say the validity of the impugned order dated 10.1.2003, whereby a sum of Rs.46,720/- has been arbitrarily sanctioned on the specious ground of rate of A.I.I.M.S. The authorities have not placed on record the yard-stick of A.I.I.M.S. On the contrary, the petitioner has placed on record the official assessment of A.I.I.M.S., a Government of India medical establishment. Furthermore, the very fact that part of the bill amount has been approved for payment, per se means that sanction 6 for treatment at B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre, Calcutta, has been accorded. In such a situation, we modify the order dated 10.1.2003, and hereby direct that the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement a sum of Rs. 1,32, 660/-, inclusive of journey expenses, towards heart surgery of the petitioner’s daughter at B.M. Birla Heart Research Centre, Calcutta. 7. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioner had withdrawn advance of Rs. 1,68,000/- on 13.3.1999, and the surgery had taken place on 21.10.2000. The vouchers of the hospital are of 28.10.2000. The petitioner should, therefore, refund the amount beyond his bill amount with interest. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.1.2003 is hereby modified. The petitioner shall refund the unutilized amount with interest at the rate of 5%with effect from 1.11.2000, till the date of refund. Vikash Jain, J.I agree. Patna High Court, Dated 28th July, 2011 Vinay/ A.F.R. ( S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Vikash Jain, J.) 7