MAMTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This public interest litigation (PIL) has been instituted by a practising advocate of this Court primarily for the purpose of seeking this Court's intervention in respect of the medical facility provided within the precinct of this Court. The writ petitioner / learned advocate has given certain instances in the writ petition which indicate lack of adequate medical facility within the precinct of this Court. By an order dated 27th November, 2019, an earlier Division Bench allowed the writ petitioner to implead the Chief Medical Superintendent, Prayagraj, as respondent no. 3 and also granted time to the respondents to file their respective counter affidavits.

(2.) When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned advocate representing the High Court Administration hands-over a copy of parawise comments which he has received from the Registrar (Protocol). Certain paragraphs of the written instruction are required to be reproduced hereinbelow;-

(3.) The above - quoted paragraphs clearly reveal that the High Court Medical Unit / Dispensary has not been established to be a substitute of a full-fledged hospital. However, we are unable to accept the reasoning provided by the High Court Administration as contained in paragraph 6. Let us suppose that the only available ambulance is already commissioned for the purpose of taking someone who has suddenly fallen ill in the High Court to the hospital. Will that mean that no stretcher will be available till such time the ambulance returns? In other words, can it possibly mean that no other person can fall ill / sick within the High Court precinct till such time the ambulance returns? That will simply be a patently absurd proposition. We are, therefore, not at all satisfied with the above statement made in paragraph 6 of the parawise comments, especially in the backdrop of the statement made in paragraph 29 of the writ petition which reads as follows:-