Sanjay Shukla and Anr. Vs State of Haryana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Sanjay Shukla and Anr. Vs State of Haryana… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioners are left at liberty to challenge the enquiry report by availing all other alternate legal remedies, available to them, in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a direction to respondent No.2 - Director General Health Services, Haryana, to constitute a “Medical Board for Negligence”, specifically in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab.

Court's answer

The prayer made in the writ petition stands rendered infructuous in view of the supervening event that the Medical Board for Negligence has already been constituted by the State of Haryana pursuant to its notification.

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

Key takeaways

Should the petitioners have any grievance qua the enquiry report, they are at liberty to challenge it by availing all other alternate legal remedies, available to them, in accordance with law.obiter¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Chandigarh), CWP-28573-2023, Kuldeep Tiwari J. (oral), decided 29.04.2025 — Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent No.2 (Director General Health Services, Haryana) to constitute a 'Medical Board for Negligence', specifically in view of the ratio in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 AIR (SC) 3180: learned counsel for the State, referring to a short reply dated 22.04.2024 filed by way of affidavit of Dr. Kavita, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, CAW East, Gurugram (for respondent No.5), intimated that pursuant to a notification issued by the State of Haryana the Medical Board had already been constituted, had concluded its enquiry and submitted its report, annexed as Annexure R-1; treating this as a supervening event rendering the prayer infructuous, the writ petition was DISMISSED AS HAVING BEEN RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to challenge the enquiry report by availing all other alternate legal remedies available in accordance with law.

CWP-28573-2023 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(243) CWP-28573-2023 Date of Decision : 29.04.2025

Sanjay Shu k la and another …Petitioners

Versu s

State of Ha r yana and others ...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, H a ryana for respondents No.1 to 5. Ms. Shivani Chauhan, Advoca t e for Mr. Sanyam Malhotra, Advoc a te for respondent No.6.

Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocat e for respondent No.7.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

Through the instant petition, c ast under Articles 226/227 of t he Constitutio n of India, a prayer is made f or issuance of a direction, u p on respondent No.2-Director General Health Services, Haryana, to constitut e a “Medical Board for Negligence”, specifica l ly, in view of the ratio laid do w n by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Jacob Mat h ew versus State of Punjab’ 2 0 05 AIR (Supre m e Court) 3180 .

Today learned counsel for the State, by referring to the s h ort reply dated 22.04.2024, filed by way of affi d avit of Dr. Kavita, HPS, Assistant Commissio n er of Police, CAW East, Gurugram, on behalf of the respondent MANPREET SINGH2025.04.30 16:29 No.5, infor m s this Court, that the prayer m a de in the instant writ petition, h as I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-28573-2023 2

in fact, ren d ered infructuous, as the Medica l Board, in terms of the notificat i on issued by t he State of Haryana, has alr e ady been constituted. He furt h er submits that the said medical board has a l ready concluded the enquiry, a nd has also su b mitted its report, and the enqui r y report is annexed with the re p ly (supra), as A nnexure R-1.

In view of the supervening ev e nt, the prayer made in the instant writ petitio n , has rendered infructuous.

Consequently, the instant wri t petition is dismissed as having

been rendered infructuous.

In case, the petitioners fetch e s any grievance qua the enq u iry report, they are at liberty to challenge the s a me, by availing all other alternate legal remed i es, available to them, in accord a nce with law.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE

April 29, 2 0 25 Manpreet

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.30 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment