IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.20996 of 2001 Between: Dr. P.Vijayapal Reddy, S/o Venkata Ramana Reddy, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Parkal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Warangal. 2 The District Medical and health Officer, Warangal District. 3 Ch.Indrasena Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy, R/o Varikola Parkal Mandal Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in proposing to conduct enquiry vide his proceedings 27-4-2001 as one without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.PODILAHARI PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.20996 of 2001 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he has completed M.B.B.S. Course in the year 1976 and in the year 1977, he started his practice at Parkal by establishing a Hospital under the name and style “Lakshmi Maternity and General Nursing Home”. It is stated that on 16-09-2000, one Mrs.K.Sadguna, W/o.Sammi Reddy, was brought to his Nursing Home complaining that she suffered electrical shock due to fall of live wire, while she was sitting in front of her house. Immediately, he admitted her into his Nursing home and gave necessary treatment to her. But, after one and half hour, he noticed that she developed omitting and loose motions. Inspite of his best efforts and care, the said Sadguna died due on 17-09-2000. It is stated that the treatment was given in the presence of the family members of the deceased and there was no complaint at the time of the death, but later, the brother of the deceased made a complaint against the petitioner, based on which, a case in Cr.No.128 of 2000 was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by Parkal Police. The police investigating the crime thoroughly and in fact, the Superintendent of Police, Warangal, obtained experts opinion from two professors of Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal, who have given their independent opinions on 16-02-2001 and 17-02-2001 respectively stating that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner and that the deceased died due to complication of electrocution and therefore, no negligence can be attributed on the petitioner for treating the deceased. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a Government Doctor, but he is a private Doctor running Nursing Home. If any offence has been committed by the petitioner, it is for the police concerned to take appropriate action against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is not empowered to conduct any enquiry with regard to the same incident i.e., relating to the death of the deceased, for which, a crime has already been registered and investigation is being taken up thoroughly. It is stated that the 2nd respondent issued a letter, dated 27-04-2001, directing the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 04-05-2001 at the Government Hospital, Parkal. Petitioner questions the said letter, dated 27-04-2001. No counter has been filed to explain as to under what power or authority, the said letter has been issued by the 2nd respondent. I am of the opinion that the said letter issued by the 2nd respondent is without any authority of law and that the petitioner cannot be subjected to second independent enquiry by the 2nd respondent, other than the enquiry, which was already going on in Cr.No.128 of 2000. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the action of the 2nd respondent in calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for conducting enquiry is illegal and unsustainable and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 27- 04-2001. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 07-08-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}