← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPPIL/88/2017disposed off

In Reference High Court Of Chhattisgarh On Its Own Motion v. Union Of India

2018-10-09Hon'Ble The Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPPIL No. 88 OF 2017 In Reference High Court of Chhattisgarh On its Own Motion (Matter Related to Lack of Medical Facilities and also Unregulated Vending). ---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Health, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi, Delhi 110011.

2.

General Manager, South East Central Railway Zone, General Manager's Office, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

3.

Chief Commercial Manager, Bilaspur Zone, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur CG.

4.

Divisional Railway Manager, Bilaspur Division, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur CG.

5.

Divisional Railway Manager Raipur Division, South East Central Railway, Raipur CG.

6.

Ministry of Forest & Environment, Government of India, New Delhi, Through its Secretary.

7.

Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, Through its Secretary.

8.

Secretary School Education Government of C.G. Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur.

9.

Secretary, Urban Administration, Government of Chhattisgarh.

10. Chhattisgarh State Environment Control Board.

11. The Chhattisgrh State Legal Services Authority, Bilaspur. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Saleem Kazi, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. For Respondent/UOI : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, ASG For Respondent/Railways : Shri Abhishek Sinha, Standing Counsel Respondent/CGSLSA : Shri Sourabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri A. S. Kachhawaha, AAG For Respondent/FSSAI : Shri Rakesh Dubey, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 09/10/2018 Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

Enough seems to have been done at the initiative of the High Court on the issue which was taken up suo motu.

3.

We are satisfied that the matter should be closed up. However, the respondent authorities involved with providing service must review the situation from time to time that the mechanism which has been put in place are still functional and capable of delivery if such situation arises in future. 4.

The Court records its appreciation for assistance rendered by one and all. Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Yogesh