IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 10378 of 2008(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DR.SUMA ABRAHAM, W/O.K.V.ABRAHAM, 2/65, E-10, BRINDAVAN, METTU IDAYAMPATTI ROAD, BAGAYAM, VELLORE, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA. 3. SACRED HEART HOSPITAL, PAYNKULAM, MAILACOMPU P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K. IBRAHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10378 OF 2008 I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that her brother Mr.Lukose is an in-patient in the 3rd respondent Hospital on account of certain ailments. This writ petition has been filed on receipt of Ext. P4 letter from the hospital requesting her to report and make arrangements for discharging the petitioner's brother Mr. Lukose. 2. Petitioner filed this writ petition mainly on the allegation that the 3rd respondent Hospital has issued Ext. P4 at the instigation of the 2nd respondent. There is also an averment that the District Judge, Thodupuzha in his capacity as the 2nd respondent has engaged a lawyer to take necessary steps in the matter of discharge of Mr.Lukose from the hospital. It is stated that the lawyer had a telephonic conversation with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the lawyer told her that she is contacting the petitioner from the hospital and that the petitioner should make W.P.(C) No. 10378 OF 2008 -2- immediate arrangements for discharging the patient. There is also an averment that the lawyer had told the petitioner that she was contacting her on the instructions of the District Judge. 3. Shri. P.K. Ibrahim, advocate appearing on notice for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the 1st respondent had received a letter from Mr.Lukose requesting for legal aid, which is a statutory obligation of respondents 1 and 2 under Section 12(g) of the Legal Services Authority Act. It is stated that on receipt of the letter, the request was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, who in turn appointed a lawyer to visit the patient and make a report. It is stated that such a report has been received, and that they have not instructed the petitioner or the hospital to discharge the patient as wrongly assumed by the petitioner. 4. From the above, it is evident that all that the respondents 1 and 2 have done is only to discharge their statutory duty under the Legal Services Authority Act and if at all the 3rd respondent has issued Ext. P4, the same was only a voluntary act and may be on misunderstanding the role that respondents 1 and 2 W.P.(C) No. 10378 OF 2008 -3- had played in this matter. 5. In view of the factual situation as above, there is absolutely no warrant for the prayers sought for by the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-