IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION No. 1245 of 2004 (M/S) Raj Pal Singh, S/o Ram Swaroop Singh, R/o Village Bharatpur, P.S. and Tehsil Jaspur, District- Udham Singh Nagar, (Uttaranchal). ……Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Principal Secretary of Ministry for Health, Dehradun. 2. Minister for Health, State of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 3. Chief Medical Officer, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. ....Respondents. Mr.K.S. Bhaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl.C.S.C. for the State-respondents. Date: - 31-03-2010 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: - I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents No. 1 to 4 to decide the representation dated 23-07-2004 as annexure No. 5 with this writ petition. II. a writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and 2 proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. III. Award the cost of petition. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner has filed this petition for his aggrieved wife Smt. Preeto Devi and for himself. The petitioner is a permanent resident of village Bharatpur, P.S. and Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar belonging to the depressed classes i.e. Scheduled Caste, sub caste Jatav. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the family welfare programme and population control programme of the State Government of Uttaranchal, the petitioner on 28-09-2002 accepted the programme of Family Planning due to lack of means for livelihood. The operation was made by Dr. H.C. Bhatt at camp Village Gram Garhinegi (Block Jaspur), District Udham Singh Nagar and certificate to this was also issued by the doctor concerned regarding the operation for the family planning. The photocopy of operation certificate has been annexed as annexure No.1 to the writ petition. Despite of the operation, the wife of the petitioner got pregnant. On 13-07- 2004, the wife of the petitioner gave birth twin babies, a girl and a boy and after giving birth the wife of the petitioner fell ill seriously thereafter the baby girl was died on 31-08-2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the doctor has committed negligence and did not take proper care at the time of family planning operation for which the written complainant was also made to the Chief Minister of Uttaranchal and copy were also sent to the Health Minister of Uttaranchal, Chief Medical Office, District-Udham Singh Nagar. 3 The grievance of the petitioner by way of representation is that he is seeking compensation against the doctor but the representation was not decided by the concerned authority. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In para 6 of the counter affidavit it has been stated in reply to para No. 4 and 5 to the writ petition that the petitioner voluntary offered for operation. The Vasectomy was performed on the petitioner on 28-9-2002 by the doctor especially assigned for the same and the same was conducted in accordance to the guidelines and procedure prescribed thereafter. It is however, stated that after conducting the successful operation and thereafter observing post operational instructions the Vasectomy operation becomes 100% successful. However, the confirmation thereof should be done after expiry of three months by Semen Test. It was the carelessness of the petitioner, which resulted in the pregnancy of his wife because he did not followed the guidelines and suggestions regarding the post operation given by the doctor. I have perused the representation made by the petitioner. The representation was made to the Chief Minister of Uttaranchal. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has claiming compensation from the doctor and State Government. In writ jurisdiction, the disputed question of facts, which requires evidence, cannot be scrutinized. In the case at hand, according to the petitioner, it is the negligence in part of the doctor and as per the averments made in the counter affidavit it is the 4 carelessness of the petitioner himself because the instruction were not followed by the petitioner given by the doctor. No such direction can be given to decide the representation, which was made to the Chief Minister of Uttaranchal. Since, the compensation could be awarded to the petitioner after scrutinized the facts whether the doctor has committed negligence in operation or the petitioner did not follow the instructions and due to carelessness of the petitioner, the operation could not succeed. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) 31-03-2010 MK