(1.) The case of the petitioner is that his son Muralidhar Behera suffered from cardiac disease. He was admitted in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack in Cardiothoracic Surgery Department on or about 6-1 -2001. He gave an application on 6-1-2001 to the opp. party for sanction of financial assistance from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for his major operation. On 7-6-2001 a letter was issued by the Section Officer, General Administration Department sanctioning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for his treatment but by letter dated 13-9-2002, the said sanction of Rs. 10,000/ was withdrawn. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said communication dated 13-9-2002 in Annexure 6 to the writ petition withdrawing the sanction of Rs. 10,000/- out of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for the treatment of his son and for directing the opposite party to sanction financial assistance of Rs. 50,000/- towards total medicine cost for the treatment of his son.
(2.) Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason as to why the impugned communication dated 13-9-2002 in Annexure 6 to the writ petition was issued by the Government of Orissa in the General Administration Department withdrawing the sanction of Rs. 10,000/- out of the Chief Minister Relief Fund is that Muralidhar Behera had died by the time the application was submitted for sanction of money out of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for his treatment. But the fact remains that the petitioner had collected money from his village people by mortgaging his house and agricultural land and had also purchased a Gortex Vascular graft worth Rs. 30,000/- and had incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- for treatment of Muralidhar Behera as stated in paragraph 4 of the writ petition.
(3.) By our order dated 14-9-2004 we had requested the learned Addl. Government Advocate to produce the relevant records in which the sum of Rs. 10.000/- had been sanctioned out of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for treatment of Muralidhar Behera and pursuant to the said order dated 14-9-2004, the records have been produced before us. It appears from the said records that the original application has been signed by Murlidhar Behera stating therein that he was affected by heart disease and had been admitted in Sriram Chandra Bhanja Medical College, Cuttack, Behind the said application the Professor and Head, Department of Thoracic and Cardiosvacular Surgery, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack has given the details of the expenses of Rs. 45,000/- for the treatment of Muralidhar Behera and has put his signature on 20-1- 2001. But the endorsement and the seal of the General Administration Department on the application show that the said application was received by the General Administration Department only on 24-4-2001. This is, thus, a case where the application was actually prepared and signed by Murlidhar Behera before his death but the application reached the General Administration Department on 24-4-2001. It cannot be disputed that from 6-1 -2001 when Muralidhar Behera was admitted in the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack till 2-2-2001 when he died, the petitioner who is the father of Muralidhar Behera must have incurred heavy expenses for the treatment of his son and the sanction of Rs. 10,000/- out of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund was thus, justified for meeting the said expenses . Merely because the application happened to reach the General Administration Department on 24-4-2001 when Muralidhar Behera had already expired cannot be ground for withdrawing the sanction of Rs. 10,000/- out of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for the treatment of Muralidhar Behera. It is also not the case of the opp. party that whenever any amount is sanctioned out of the Chief Minister's Relief Fund for treatment of a patient, the amount has to be refunded if the patient dies. The view taken by the opp. party for withdrawal of the sanction of Rs. 10,000/- for the treatment for Muralidhar Behera is thus totally irrational and unreasonable and the Court in exercise of judicial review can quash a decision on the basis of such an unreasonable and irrational view.