L mv glgH COURT 0? £HHAwimARH: BELASMJR Writ PetEiion (C) No. 2936 of 2W3 PETSTIGNER Pushpa Ram Bhatiacharjee,Wdia. Late Shri Mahir Bhattasharjee, aged about 65 years, Rm, Village &P.O‘ Masha; PLS‘ Bharaipur, Digit Murshidabad {West BengaE). Versus RESPSNDEI‘HS 1) Sumana Bhattacharjee; ged abwt % years, Wfa. Sushanta Bhattachargee, B— fype Quarier, $taff Cmian'y, Duman Hil¥s, S.E.C.L. P.O.Sonawam, Distf. Kama (CG) South Eastern Ccah’zetds Ltd, thmuqh ChairmanLQum-Managing Direc£5n Bi§aspur, PO. & Eistt; Biiaspur (CG). K Chief oametds Gengra‘ Ltd, Wanag (3mm: r {erg}. south Easter C n aatfieids imctor Perserre! Ltd” Bilaénur, Swth ‘PtQ & Eager Disgt. E§iaspur (CG). Dy, Labaur Camméssianer, {Centrai}, Raipw: PO. & Dim, Raipur (CG) Swhanta Bhattacharjee, aged ab0u€ 47 years, Sic. kate Shri Mimr Bhattawarjee, B—type Quayter; Staff Coisny; SECL Duman Hié%s, PC). Sonwani, Disit. Korea {CG}. ; {Writ Petitin‘n under Articie 226 9f me Constituticn 9f mdia) SB: Hozi’me Mr. Just§ce Satisf: K. Agmhotri ‘ Pre$$nt Smt. Meera Jaiswaz counsei forthe petiticnar Dy. NK. Shuiia, Sr. Advacate w§£h Ms. Rita M§shra Advocate forthe respendente N32, 3 and 4. ORAL ORDER {Passed en this 8‘“ day cf Warmer, 200$) The petwoner. Wm happens ta be mother of the respondent No.6. has frie‘ this petitien seeking for foHowing retiefe: ”m {he respondente No.2 to 4 kindiy be directed £9 provide best medica! treatment to the aiiing son respondent no.6. to the alternative. a C D ' e if the be$t ireatment is not made avai%ab¥e ta respcndeat naa; the son respcndent no.6 kind!y be directed to ba entrusted to the p§titioner for best treatment ava§§abie for . her son, the respondent no:8. (ii) The matter af previdmg service ta respednentno.1 as per ruée of SECL (an mmpassionate greund) may kindly be directed to be kept én abey‘ahce in View cf previsiens made in the l3€sabled Persens {Equal Opporiunities) Act, I (iii) Any ether reiéef deem justified may kmdty be ailowed.” The {espondent Nee is the empieyee 0f the respondents No. 2 to 4. He is 3 ‘ umwgeing treatment. Stnce the respondent No.6, whd is not satiseed with the e treatment provioed to him‘ he being major} has to approaoh this Court for C‘appropréate reiief. The reéief cannot be sought tot thtougn me mother and particulany where the respondent No.6 has been arrayeo as party respondent. Thus, the petition seems te be mischtevous and as such without any merit. 3) Accordingiy, the petttion ts dismissed in iimine. Consequentiy, pending pplications an ato nci ismieeed. Sdl- atish K. Agnihot-ri ' Judge $ ‘ a, if y, s eta d S