Disposed
Md. Rafiq Khaisar v. The Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences
Telangana HCPIL/221/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND…
What the court decided
AI extract
JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
P.I.L.No.221 of 2013
Date: 01.07.2013
Between: Md.Rafiq Khaisar
.....Petitioner
AND The Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Represented by its Executive Director, Hyderabad and 5 others
...Respondents
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
P.I.L. No.221 of 2013
ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta )
We have seen the report of the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and after having seen it we feel that nothing is to be done except to direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh to take action pursuant to the report submitted by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department dated 14.11.2011 and appropriate action shall be taken in terms of the said report in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The nature of the action taken by the Government shall be communicated to the petitioner.
With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition are closed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
G.ROHINI, J
01.07.2013 Gsn.
Md. Rafiq Khaisar
The Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Represented by its Executive Director, Hyderabad and 5 others
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court