Disposed

Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2014CWP/5077/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL alleging insufficient ultrasound machines in civil hospitals. The High Court held that equipment standards depend on budget allocations and observed no record showed unutilized funds. It directed the State to respond to the prior representation detailing a time schedule for hospital equipment.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to communicate a reasoned response within one month specifying the time schedule for equipping hospitals as per Annexure P/4.

Sandeep Kumar Gupta Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.5077 of 2014 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 19.03.2014

¶3

Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta

¶4

…..Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI

¶9

Present: Mr. Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)

¶11

The PIL has been filed alleging that out of 177 civil hospitals, only 56 have ultrasound m achines which is a basic requirement of what ought to be there in the Radiology Departm ents of the hospitals. The allegation is that in some of the hospitals, they are available only on certain days while in others the machines are lying sealed.

¶12

We have no doubt that providing healthcare facilities to the citizens is one of the m ajor responsibilities of the State Government. However, how a hospital is to be m anned or equipped, the standards to be m aintained, etc. all requires adequate budget allocations. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the budget allocation is lying unutilized.

¶13

Be that as it may, a detailed representation is stated to have been m ade to the State Government on 15.10.2013 (Annexure P/ 4) and the least which is expected is that the State Governm ent would respond

¶14

Chand Parkash 2014.03.19 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CW P- 5077 - 2014

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

to the issues raised by the petitioner in that representation and specify the time schedule for equipping the hospitals.

¶18

We, thus, call upon the respondents No.1 and 2 to communicate a reasoned response to the petitioner within one month from today in respect of representation^__ Annexure P/ 4.

¶19

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶20

A copy of the petition has been supplied in Court to Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

¶21

Copy of order be given dasti under signatures of Bench Secretary to learned counsels for the parties.

¶22

( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL ) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶23

19.03.2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) parkash* JUDGE

¶24

Chand Parkash 2014.03.19 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmej Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Anil Pannikker Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Yamuna Fabricators Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yogesh Kumar Vs Central Admin. Tribunal & Ors.

UOI and Ors. Vs Cat and Ors.

Ut Chd Administration and Anr. Vs Geeta Mohan and Ors.