Disposed

V.V.S. Sundaram v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC19 Nov 2020WP(MD)/16267/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Through a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner alleged that government doctors were running private clinics and diverting patients. The Court dispensed with notice to the doctors and directed the Deputy Director of Health Service to consider the representation, hear parties, and pass orders on merits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's representation, hear parties, and pass appropriate orders on merits within six weeks.

V.V.S. Sundaram Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.16267 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.11.2020 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)No.16267 of 2020

V.V.S.Sundaram

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶10

Health and Family Welfare (AA1) Department,

¶11

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

3.The Deputy Director of Health Service,

¶14

Health Service Office, P.S.R.Road, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

4.Dr.Jayaraman,

¶16

5.Dr.Indira ... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action against the respondent Nos.4 and 5, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 07.07.2020 within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

[Order of the Court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. ]

¶20

This writ petition has been filed for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action against the respondent Nos.4 and 5, on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 07.07.2020 within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶21

2.Heard Mr.K.Gokul, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader, who takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

1/2

¶24

W.P(MD)No.16267 of 2020

¶25

3.The writ petitioner has come up before this Court alleging that the 4^th and 5^th respondents cannot run a private clinic, when they are being Government Doctors. The petitioner submits that whoever comes to the Government Hospitals, where the 4^th and 5^th respondents are working, for treatment, are being referred to their own private clinic, wherein treatment is being given by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 at cost. Even pregnant women, who come to the Government Hospitals for treatment are referred to their private clinic and they are doing Cesarian and deliveries are taking place in their clinic. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation, dated 07.11.2020 to respondent Nos. 1 to 3, however, no action has been taken and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

4.Notice to the 4^th and 5^th respondents is dispensed with.

¶27

5.This Court without going into the merits of the case, directs respondent No.3 to consider the representation given by the petitioner on 07.07.2020 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

6.This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. No

¶29

costs.

¶30

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

dsk

¶32

¶33

1.The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare (AA1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶34

2.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Teynampet,Chennai – 600 006.

¶35

3.The Deputy Director of Health Service,Health Service Office, P.S.R.Road, Sivakasi,Virudhunagar District.

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.K.GOKUL, Advocate ( SR-22146[F] dated 19/11/2020 ) W.P(MD)No.16267 of 2020 19.11.2020

¶37

SVN(CO)

¶38

AP(04/12/2020) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶39

2/2

V.V.S. Sundaram v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.V.S. Sundaram v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Umadevan Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Karuppasamy Vs the Deputy General Manager(Tech)

Sivakami Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

S.Gokulpath Vs the Chairman

B.Ramkumar Adityan Vs District Collector

P. Sheema Vs the Authorized Officer