IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17644 of 2009 1. HARILAL SINGH S/O GANGA VISHNU SINGH R/O VILL.- MAJHAR P.S.- TURKAULIA DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HEALTH GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SADAR MOTIHARI, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TURKAULIA BLOCK DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN ----------- 02. 11.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner who is stated to be holding the qualification of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (hereinafter called the B.A.M.S.) from the R.N. Mukherjee Ayurved College and Hospital under the Bihar University Muzaffarpur, is aggrieved by the order dated 7.10.2009 issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar at Motihari by which directions have been issued to institute a First Information Report against him for operation upon human beings endangering human life without proper qualification. It is submitted that the order is self-contradictory when it directs institution of a First Information Report and simultaneously calls upon the petitioner to submit papers/documents of his professional qualification and show cause as to why appropriate action be not taken against him. 2 Learned counsel for the State submits that he has written instructions to state that no First Information Report have been lodged till date. The Court is at a complete loss to understand the nature of the order dated 7.10.2009. It proceeds to order institution of a First Information Report simultaneously calling upon the petitioner to show cause by submitting documents of his professional qualification why the First Information Report be not instituted. The Court further finds the show cause notice to be delightfully vague without any details of the nature of allegations against the petitioner. The impugned order dated 7.10.2009 is accordingly quashed. This shall be without prejudice to the rights of the competent respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, but only after doing their complete home work in the matter instead of a roving and fishing enquiry. The writ application stands allowed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)