IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.25831 of 2014 Between:
Mohammad Yusuff, S/o. Mohd. Ibrahim, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o. 4-170/66, Madhavapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad 500 594.
.. Petitioner AND The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Secretariat Buildigns, Saifabad, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.25831 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner is contracted by profession undertaking various civil works in Bellampally Town. Having come to his notice that the 3rd respondent in the writ petition is running hospital in the name and style of ‘Janatha Clinic’ posing himself as a doctor and misleading the people by administering treatment and medicine to innocent people, the petitioner earlier instituted P.I.L.No.234 of 2013 as a public spirited person ventilating the grievance of the ordinary residents of Bellampally Town against the actions of the 3rd respondent herein, who was the 9th respondent in P.I.L.No.234 of 2013.
2. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of P.I.L.No.234 of 2013 on 08.07.2014 with the following directions.
“Under the circumstances, we direct the District Medical & Health Officer, Adilabad to enquire into the matter pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner dated 4.12.2009 in Annexure-P1 enclosed to the petition. After enquiry, if it is found that the allegations made in the complaint are correct, necessary legal steps are to be taken and before such steps are taken, an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to respondent No.9. This exercise shall be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order.”
3. Alleging that in spite of the directions issued by this Court in P.I.L.No.234 of 2013, no further action is taken, as warranted by law, and the 3rd respondent herein continues to operate the hospital and mislead the ordinary people, the petitioner also filed contempt case in C.C.No.1067 of 2014 seeking to summon the respondents 1 to 3 in the contempt case and punish them for not implementing the orders passed in P.I.L.No.234 of 2013, dated 08.07.2013. The Division Bench of this Court, having considered the matter, held that the allegations reported in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are not good enough to initiate contempt proceedings. The Division Bench, therefore, refused to entertain the contempt case and, accordingly, dismissed C.C.No.1067 of 2014. However, leave is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh case in accordance with law.
4. This writ petition is instituted making similar allegations against the 3rd respondent, who was the 9th respondent in P.I.L.No.234 of 2013 and further grievance that the 2nd and 4th respondents herein have not taken any further steps in pursuant to a notice issued on 13.07.2013 to close the Janatha Clinic of the 3rd respondent.
5. The averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition would disclose that there is no personal grievance to the petitioner against the 3rd respondent. The present writ petition is also instituted as a public spirited person in him ventilating the grievance of inaction on the part of the authorities in taking action against the 3rd respondent, who is posing himself as a doctor and running a hospital in the name of Janatha Clinic though he is not qualified to treat the people for sickness. In all such matters where litigation is instituted by public spirited persons ventilating the general grievance of the public and where there is no individual grievance, the petitions are filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation and are placed before a Division Bench for consideration. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why this time a writ petition is filed where on the same issue, same petitioner filed P.I.L.No.234 of 2013. Therefore, the petition in the present form is not maintainable.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings, as warranted by law, to ventilate the grievance as projected in this writ petition, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 4th September, 2014 Note: Issue C.C. in three (3) days. (B/o.) KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.25831 of 2014 Date: 4th September, 2014 KL