Sazida And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20904-2025(O&M) Date of Decision: 28.04.2026 Sazida and another ....Petitioners vs.

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. Mohd. Aadil Hussain, Advocate for Mr. Mohd. Arshad, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Deepak Vashisht, D.A.G, Haryana Ms. Amisha Rana, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No. 4 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondents to grant them compensation on account of death of Mrs. Vasira (wife of petitioner No.2) due to negligence in treatment.

2.

The petitioners are relatives of one Vasira who succumbed to her injuries. She on 13.01.2023 at 08:00 AM met with a hit and run accident. She was admitted to Shaheed Hasan Khan Mewat Hospital from where she was referred to Nalhad Hospital and then to PGIMS, Rohtak-Respondent No. 4. The petitioners claim that respondent No. 4 has not provided timely treatment to the deceased. They filed representations dated 26.05.2023 and 19.07.2023 seeking action against respondent No. 4 but to no avail. PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2026.04.28 05:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.20904-2025(O&M) -2Petitioner No. 1 approached this Court by way of CWP-27537-2023 which was withdrawn vide order dated 07.12.2023. She filed representation dated 22.01.2024 to Chairman, District Medical Board, Rohtak for action against respondent No. 4 for negligence but to no avail. It is apt to notice here that petitioner No.2 was in jail at the time of alleged accident. 3.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that for the same cause of action, petitioners have preferred second writ petition. They previously filed CWP No. 27537 of 2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedies.

4.

On being pointed out aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out how the second writ petition is maintainable. 5.

In the backdrop, the petition is dismissed.

6.

Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 28.04.2026 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2026.04.28 05:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document