CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS MATTER HAS COME UP FOR ORDERS. THE RELIEFS ASKED FOR ARE AS MANY AS six. EACH OF THE RELIEFS IS COUCHED IN such VAGUE TERMS THAT THE COURT IS NOT in A POSITION TO KNOW WHAT DIRECTION may BE ISSUED AND WHAT THE GRIEVANCES of THE PETITIONERS ARE, ( 2 ) NO MATERIAL IS PLACED BY THEPETITIONERS EXCEPT SOME NEWSPAPER cuttings IN REGARD TO SPREAD OF THE aids VIRUS CAUSING ACQUIRED IMMUNE deficiency SYNDROME. IT IS COMMON knowledge THAT THE SPREAD OF THIS disease IS ON THE INCREASE AND ALL countries ARE TAKING MANY STEPS TO control THE SPREAD AS WELL AS PREVENT the SPREAD AND FIND A CURE FOR THE disease AS WELL. ( 3 ) ONE OF THE ACCEPTED THEORIESFOR THE SPREAD OF THE DISEASE IS TRANSFUSION of BLOOD. PREPERATION OF VACCINE has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BLOOD TRANSFUSION. THE PERSON HAVING AIDS DONATES BLOOD AND if IT IS GIVEN TO ANOTHER patient, THE PATIENT WHO RECEIVES SUCH blood IS LIKELY TO BE CONTAMINATED BY the AIDS DISEASE. NO MATERIAL IS placed AS TO HOW THE PETITIONERS PROPOSE TO prevent PERSONS FROM DONATING blood. THE COURT EXPECTS ALL AUTHORITIES TO test PERSONS DONATING BLOOD IN order TO FIND OUT WHETHER THEY HAVE THE disease BEFORE THEY DONATE BLOOD. ( 4 ) NO SPECIFIC DIRECTION AS SUCHFROM THIS COURT IS NECESSARY IN THIS BEHALF. THERE IS NO BREACH OF STATUTORY duty POINTED OUT BY THE PETITIONERS. THIS COURT CANNOT ASSUME TO RUN THE health DEPARTMENTS IN THE STATE BY issuing THE DIRECTIONS PRAYED FOR BY the PETITIONERS. THAT PUBLIC INTEREST is SERVED BY ISSUING DIRECTION IS ONLY the OPINION OF THE PETITIONERS. THE court IS NOT IN A POSITION TO FORM SUCH an OPINION IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER material BEING PLACED BEFORE IT. IN that CIRCUMSTANCE, ANY SUPPORT SOUGHT to BE DERIVED BY THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED in THE COUNTER TO THE STATEMENT OF objection BY RESPONDENTUNION WHICH has ENTERED APPERANCE IS NOTHING MORE than BEGGING THE QUESTION. ( 5 ) THE COURT EXPECTS BOTH UNIONAND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO CARRY OUT their OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION to MAINTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH TO THE BEST extent POSSIBLE. ( 5 ) THE COURT EXPECTS BOTH UNIONAND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO CARRY OUT their OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION to MAINTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH TO THE BEST extent POSSIBLE. THE COURT CANNOT SIT in JUDGMENT OVER ACTION TAKEN BY THE state UNLESS MATERIAL IS PLACED BEFORE the COURT TO SHOW THAT ACTION TAKEN has NOT MET WITH THE DEGREE OF SUCCESS expected IN SUCH SITUATIONS OR THAT NO action HAS BEEN TAKEN AT ALL. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, THE PETITION IS MISCONCEIVED ANDAS SUCH IT IS REJECTED without PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHTS OF THE petitioners TO MOVE THIS COURT WHERE specific INSTANCE MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE notice OF THE COURT IN WHICH INJURY HAS been CAUSED TO MEMBERS OF PUBLIC BY the INACTION OF THE UNION OR THE STATE government. WRIT PETITION REJECTED. --- *** --- .