1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2824 OF 1998 Kamalesh Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner Versus Station Commander & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Kamalesh Kumar Pandey, present in-person. Mr.Y.R.Mishra with Mr.D.A.Dubey for Respondents 1 to 4. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 21, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the Petitioner who appears in-person and the Counsel appearing for the Respondents. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for the following reliefs: “(a) Rule be issued; (b) this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the relevant papers and documents concerning the case of the Petitioner herein and after examining the same be pleased to direct the Respondents herein to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the Petitioner herein as and by way of damages caused to him on account of serious prejudice to the right of the Petitioner; (c) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.” 2 2. This relief is founded on the assertion that the Petitioner had to suffer both mental, physical and financial loss and damage due to the wrong medical diagnosis with regard to the health condition of the Petitioner. The basis on which the Petitioner has approached this Court has been countered by the Respondents by filing reply affidavit. The reply affidavit asserts that all possible due care was taken to treat the Petitioner and best medical facility was offered to the Petitioner during the relevant period. 3. Considering the reply affidavit, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the Respondents have countered the allegations made by the Petitioner. In other words, the Petition raises disputed questions of facts. It is not open for this Court to examine the disputed questions of facts and more so when the Petitioner has other appropriate remedy available for redressal of his grievance and claim. 4. Counsel for the Respondents have invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ins. Malhotra (Ms.) vs. Dr.A.Kriplani & Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 705. We do not want to burden this order in analysing the factual matrix of the case made out in the Petition or the reply affidavit filed, as we think it appropriate to leave the 3 option to the Petitioner to resort to suitable remedy and for such reliefs as may be advised and permissible by law - other than the remedy of writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss this Petition for the aforesaid reasons. 5. Realising this position, the Petitioner who is appearing in-person states that in that case, the Petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present Writ Petition with liberty to take recourse to such other remedy as may be permissible by law other than Writ Petition. We have no difficulty in acceding to this request of the Petitioner. 6. Accordingly, we dispose of this Petition as withdrawn by the Petitioner with liberty as prayed. All questions raised by the Petitioner on facts or law, as the case may be, are left open to be considered in appropriate proceedings which the Petitioner would take recourse to as may be advised. 7. The Petitioner be provided xerox copy of the Writ Petition compilation including the Memo of Petition, Annexures as well as the reply 4 affidavit filed by the Respondents along with its accompaniments, if applied for at the cost of the Petitioner. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)