Yogesh Kumar Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2269 of 2016 • Radheshyam Dhakate S/o Ramlal Dakate, Aged About 40 Years R/o Thana Chowk, Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhavan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Health Services, Indravati Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents And WPC No. 1662 Of 2016
1. Yogesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Gaindlal Verma, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village And Post- Sahaspur Lohara, DistrictKabirdham (Chhattisgarh)
2. Manoj Kumar Mourya, S/o Hira Ram Mourya, Aged About 32 Years R/o Supela, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner Vs
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. Director Health Services, Indravati Bhavan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. Chief Medical Health Officer, Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh)
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent And WPC No. 1974 Of 2014 • Kishun Lal Sinha, son of Shri Khadu Ram Sinha, aged about 43 years, residence of Village and Post Kumhari, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Vs
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, PS Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, CG
2. Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur PS Raipur, District Raipur, CG
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, Dist Durg, CG ---- Respondents For Petitioners Shri C. J. K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Ramakant Mishra, Dy. AG For CBI Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 20/10/2016 1.
The present batch of writ petitions have been preferred to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for registration to prescribe medicine in light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.02.2003 in Civil Appeal No.152/1994.
2.
On 07.09.2016, the following order was passed by this Court:- "The petitioner is claiming right to practice in Medicine on the strength of Diploma Certificate issued by the Medical Council Community Services of India (Annexure P-1) and an order issued by the Medical Court Government of India, Bakshi Lane, Bowbazar, P.O.- Krishnagar, Dist-Nadia, West Bengal, 741101, India, under the signature of the Chief Justice, Medical Court Government of India (Annexure P-3). The document Annexure P-3 purportedly issued by Medical Court Government of India, does not inspire confidence. It is not mentioned in the document as to under which statutory provision this "Medical Court Government of India" has been established. As far as, this Court is aware, there is no Chief Justice in any establishment other than the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Let the Central Bureau of Investigation hold an enquiry and submit a report before this Court within a period of one month from today. Post it thereafter.
Learned State counsel shall supply the entire document to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhilai within a week.
Report shall be submitted before this Court in a sealed cover.
It is informed that in WPC No.1662/2016 also the same document has been placed on record.
On the next date, both the cases shall be listed together."
3.
Pursuant to the said order, the CBI has conducted a fact finding enquiry and has produced a report in sealed cover, which was opened in the Court room. As per the report, the institutions, which have purportedly issued the certificates, are fake or bogus and FIR No.172/2016 dated 07.03.2016 has already been
registered against the persons, who have issued certificate, at P.S. Kotwali, Krishnanagar, District Nadia, West Bengal under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC.
4.
At this stage, Shri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would seek permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition. 5.
In view of the prayer made, the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
6.
The report submitted by the CBI is made part of the record of the writ petitions.
Sd/- JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Nirala