PRABHABAI FULSINGH RAGADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties Rule the learned Counsel for the respondents state that the affidavit in reply filed by them from time to time be considered as their return in reply to the petition It is further submitted that as this petition has been heard at the stage of admission itself and the Court has issued certain interim orders from time to time it can be finally disposed of and therefore, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we have reserved the judgment as we proposed to finally dispose of this petition, which now stands disposed of

(2.) THE petitioners are wife and husband, residents of Amgaon, Tahsil Amgaon, district Gondia Petitioner No 1 Prabhabai works as labourer to earn her livelihood, whereas petitioner No 2 i e her husband gullu @ Fulsmgh Nanhersingh Ragade is rickshaw puller The petitioners are required to knock the doors of this Court as inspite of approaching all concerned they were unable to get justice and therefore, they have filed this petition seeking Writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction from this Court to respondent/ State to order inquiry/investigation by the State c. I. D. in the matter of whereabouts of second child born to petitioner No. 1 in B. G. W. Hospital, Gondia on 9. 4. 2002 at 7. 00 a. m. and seek direction that either the State traces out the missing newly born child of the petitioner and/or prosecute all those concerned with the kidnapping or disposal of the newly born child for the offences committed by them. In addition petitioners also pray to take disciplinary action against officers and other employees of B. G. W. Hospital at gondia and Police Officials for the inaction and dereliction of duties in not investigating the matter and have also sought compensation from respondent Nos. 4 to 10 in the sum of Rs. Ten Lacs for loss of their newly born child.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that they are poor people falling below poverty line and earn their livelihood by manual work and pulling Cycle Rickshaw. They had a son of about 1 1/2 years when petitioner no. 1 conceived for second time in July, 2001 and she was due to deliver a child in the month of April, 2002 therefore, for want of basic amenities at Government hospital, Amgaon, petitioner No. 2 was constrained to bring petitioner No. 1 to gondia and admit her in B. G. W. Hospital, gondia for delivery. It is the case of the petitioner that as they were not financially in a position to meet the expenses of delivery of the second child in any private nursing Home and for want of proper facilities at Amgaon they were left with no choice but come to Gondia. As they found that B. G. W. Hospital, Gondia was a suitable place and therefore, petitioners came to Gondia in the night at about 12'o clock on 8. 4. 2002 wherein respondent Nos. 5 to 9 are employed in different capacities.