IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 27818 of 2006(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.AJITH KUMAR, IN-CHARGE MARKETING AND DISPERSAL, ERNAKULAM DIVISION, AYURDHARA PHARMACEUTICALS, (UNIT OF KERALA STATE SCST FEDERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA), VEDANILAYAM, THEVARA, KOCHI. BY ADVS. MR.SAJI MATHEW, MR.K.S.JAYARAJAN (VELUR). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING IN CHIEF, HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, COCHIN. 2. JCDA-IN-CHARGE, NAVAL BASE, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, COCHIN. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY MR.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, C.G.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.27818/2006-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS AND THE CERTIFICATE OF CLEARANCE ISSUED BY COMMANDER LOGISTIC OFFICER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER OF SMT. ROSSAMMA PAPPACHAN. EXT.P.3: REPRESENTATION DTD. 19/09/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27818 OF 2006 (J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be an Ayurveda Medical Practitioner. He treated one Rosamma Pappachan, an employee of the INHS Sanjivani, a Naval Establishment. The aforesaid patient claimed reimbursement of medical expenses by lodging claim with the first respondent, who forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent appears to have returned the claim. Thereupon the petitioner submitted a complaint to the first respondent and complaining of inaction of the first respondent on the complaint made by him that this writ petition is filed. 2. In my view, this writ petition deserve to be dismissed mainly on the ground that the petitioner has no grievance to be redressed before this court. If at all a medical reimbursement of an employee is rejected, it is for that person who is aggrieved by such rejection or return to prosecute his grievance and get the grievance redressed. In this matter, petitioner who only treated the patient has no locus standi to approach this court by filing this writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WPC.No. /09 :2 :