Jigyashu Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 768 of 2018 Jigyashu Agrawal Aged About 2 Years 9 Months, (Minor), R/o C-18, Sai Vila, Bhatgaav Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through Wali Father The Legal Guardian Devendra Agrawal, Age About 33 Years. ---- Appellant

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director General National Aids Control Organization (NACO), 36 Janpath, New Delhi.

3. Director Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Assistant Project Director Chhattisgarh State Aids Control Society, Kali Badhi Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Director Incharge J.L.N. Hospital And Research Centre, Sector-9. Bhilai, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh.

6. Incharge Officers (H.O.D.) J.L.N. Hospital And Research Centre Blood Bank, Sector-9, Bhilai District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

7. Deputy Drugs Controller Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (West Zone), Billasis Road, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

8. Commissioner/Controller Food And Drug Administration, Indravti Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

9. Deleted As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated- 30.11.2018. 10.Deleted As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated- 30.11.2018.

11. Chief Executive Officer Bhilai Steel Plant, Ishpat Bhavan, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Appellant : Shri Devendra Agrawal, father of the Appellant, in person. For Respondent/State : Shri Satish Chandra Verma, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent/BSP : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board 22/01/2019 Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 1.

Heard counsel for the parties.

2.

Appeal has been preferred against rejection of an interim order. The main writ application which is Writ Petition (C) No.1596 of 2018 is yet to be decided on merits.

3.

The Court is informed that the writ application is already on the Board of the learned Single Judge, it will be in interest in the things that the parties renders assistance for final adjudication of the writ application. 4.

The reason for refusal for interim relief seems to be cogent and valid, especially when it had manifestations in matter of treatment of serious patients who have been admitted to the hospital in question. 5.

Appeal is dismissed but liberty is granted to the parties to assist the learned Single Judge.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Yogesh