Allowed

Matcha Kumar v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Telangana HC9 Nov 2023WP/26506/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a mandamus directing Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. to arrange re-medical examination for a driver suffering from Cervical Spondylitis. The petitioner alleged the initial certificate was issued arbitrarily. The High Court directed the respondents to send the petitioner for re-examination within 20 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to send the petitioner for re-medical examination and to reach a decision within 20 weeks.

Matcha Kumar Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY THE NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 26506 OF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

Matcha Kumar. S/o lr/uthaiah, Aged about 60^years, Occ. M.V. Driver, E.C No 0489652, R/o H No J.K-5, OC, Yellandu, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Rep. by^{its Managing Director and} Chairman, Singareni Bhavan, Masab Tank.^Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Director Personnel and Welfare, Singareni Collieries^{CompanyLtd, At} Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem Distnct.

¶13

3 The General lvlanager, Personnel (lR &^{PM), Yellandu Area, Singareni} Collieries Company Ltd. at Yellandu. Bhadradri^{KothagudemDistrict.}

¶14

4 The Chief Medical Board, Singareni Collaries^{Main Hospital,Singareni} Collieries Company Ltd, At Kothagudem,^{Bhadradri Kothagudem District.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavrt^{frled therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the^natureof WRIT OF MANDAMUS by declaring the^{impugned action of the Respondents} hereln in not considering the case of^{the Petitionerfor re-medical examination in} pursuance of the representation dated 16-08-2023 and in view of^medical Certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital,^{Hyderabad,as illegal, arbitrary,} void ab-intio and violative of due^{procedureof law besides violativeof principles} of natural^justice and consequently direct the^{Respondentshereinto considerthe} representation of the^petitioner dated^{16-08-2023and send the Petitioner for re-} medical examination to any other teaching^{Governmenthospitalsi.e., Gandhi} Hospital, Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad^{and M.M. Hospital Warangal.}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

PetltionunderSecttonl5,lCPCprayingthatrnthecircumstancesstated intheaffidavrtfiledinsupporlofthepetltion,theHrghCoUrtmaybepleasedto direct the Respondents^{herein to consider the representatlonof the Pettttoner} dated 16-08 2023^{and send lhe Petitioner for re'medical examinationto any} other teaching Government^{Hosprtalsi.e. Gandhr Hosprtal osmanra Hospttal.} Hyderabad and M.M^{HospitalWarangalpendingdisposal of the above writ} petitron

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI L.BHARGAVA KRISHNA}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI P.SRIHARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL}

¶21

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶22

\ \

¶23

THE HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICE P.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶24

W.P.No. 26506 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

In this Writ Petitlon, the^{petitioner isseeking a} direction to the respondents^{to consider his case for re-} medical examination as^{he issuflering from Cervical} Spondilosys problem and^{to pass such other orderor} orders in the interest^{of justice.}

¶27

Learned cotlnsel for^{the petitionersubmitted} that petitioner is^{working as Motor Vehicledriver in the} respondent Corporation^{and since he was suffering from} certain medical^{problems,heapplied forCorporate} Medical Examination. It^{isalleged that withoutany} physical examination, the^{respondents have issued "fit for} job certificate" to him, but since the^{problem persisted,the} petitioner subjected himself to^{medicalexaminationat} Gandhi Medical Hospital,^{whereinaCertificatedated} A.OA.2O23 was given^{that he issufferingfrom Disc} Protrusion at LS-S 1^{and needed completebed rest and} physiotherapy. Thereafter, the^{petitioner has made a}

'x=

l l

represen tation da ted 16.o8.2023 examination to the respondents, for re-medical but the respondents have not considered the same so far.

¶32

1 Mr.p. Sriharsha Reddy, Learned Stand rng Counsel appearing ror th e rcspondents is also heard 4 In view o above submissions' this court deems it lit and oror"n" to direct the responderts to send trre petitione.,o. a"-n'tt c'xamination to the corporate Medical Board and ,,'"0'"' a decision on his case on the basis of the report *rr.tut o' the Board The entire exerc.ise s.ari be compreted *,'n of tuo Q) weeks from the dare of receipt ". ,r,:':.::eriod

¶33

S. The nrit p, tition is accordingly disposed of There shar be no order as to costs. 6. Misce.l.laneous applications, if shail alY pending, 1]1o^{stand closed.}

¶34

//TRUE COPY// A s s' ssPl $iYRsE d ! f8f R sEcroN oFrrcen

¶35

1 {[? #* tt;:g. ?:..fi','l: ff j" r. lii,fl i;5;, n^{a re} n i c o | | i e ri e s c o m p a n y L rd,

¶36

2 ,I: i,&'LJtr, E;:'.Tl? c orrieries c ompa ny Ltd, At

¶37

3 ^11fl^{"y,?!T;,ti?:i,",,} Jffi ","sJa;igilr,::,i,::i:lffi lJ,[.:J,%*""?LuH;;affi ,sinsareni

To,

/ l i

/ I

G*q

u'" n'

ff :fl]ff^{.., Y8iil,S?TJi,} ",?ll.n

¶44

4 Ui "::$ #il li'.,?11','*"i'"i !3 S"?lL ,^{Advocate IOPUCIIOPUCI}

¶45

,^{Advocate IOPUCIIOPUCI}

¶46

One^{CC to SRI L BHARGAVAKRISHNA}

¶47

5 SC FOR^{SCCL IOPUC]}

¶48

6 ONE^{CC tO SRI P,SRI HARSHA REDDY,}

¶49

¶50

7 Two^{CD CoPtes}

BSR

BS^Vv'

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

PMD, J

DATED: 09/11 12023

ORDER

1tr E STAre
(
e
i 1o No\l 2023 -tuz[)
A
I
, D['j pt T l.

¶59

WP.No.26506 of 2023

¶60

DlSPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶61

WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

c1 eSel Yr\o\t

Matcha Kumar v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matcha Kumar v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

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

Ankam Lingaiah Vs Gajula Mallu

Palla Nishanth Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Girija Putta Vs The State of Telangana

E.Narsimha Reddy Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. of T.S

A.Veereshalingam Vs The Singareni Colleries Company Ltd.

P. Anuradha Vs The State of Telangana