Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 445 (RAJ)

K. K. Bansal v. State Of Rajasthan

2003-03-27

ANIL DEV SINGH, H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. :- This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2002, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: The appellant who was working as Executive Engineer in Public Health and Engineering Department, Jhunjhunu, applied for casual leave from 5.12.1996 to 7.12.1996 and 9.12.1996 to 12.12.1996. The appellant also sought permission to leave station from 5.12.1996 to 12.12.1996 on account of some personal work which was to be attended by him at New Delhi. The Superintendent Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, sanctioned the leave as sought by the appellant. On 5.12.1996, the appellant while at New Delhi felt pain in his Chest. He was removed to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, where the appellant as admitted in emergency ward around mid night. In the hospital the appellant was subjected to angiography test on 11.12.1996. Thereafter on 18.12.1996, the appellant was operated upon for bypass surgery at Escorts Heart Institution and Research Centre.For the operation and various tests performed on the appellant, the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, raised a bill for Rs. 1,80,000/-.On 3.3.1997 the appellant applied to the concerned authority for grant of Ex-post-facto sanction for payment of the bill of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. On 18.10.1997 the Chief Engineer transmitted the application of the appellant to the Secretary, Public Health and Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur for grant of Ex-post-facto sanction as sought by the appellant. It appears that the matter remained in correspondence for some time and finally on 29.1.1999 the State rejected the request of the appellant. The appellant again submitted a representation to the concerned authority for grant of the Ex post-facto sanction of the aforesaid bill on 12.12.1999. In response to the representation, the Deputy Secretary on 1.4.1999, informed the appellant that there was no scope for relaxation of the rules. 3. The appellant failing to receive a favourable response from the Government ultimately filed a writ petition in this Court on 6.2.2002. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay and laches. The appellant not being satisfied with the order, filed the instant appeal. That is how the matter has been placed before us. 4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of delay and laches. The appellant not being satisfied with the order, filed the instant appeal. That is how the matter has been placed before us. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. We are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge needs to be set aside. The learned Single Judge while holding that the writ petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabinder Nath Bose v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1970 Supreme Court 470 and in State of Orissa v. Sri Pyarimohan Samantarary and Ors., AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2617 . It needs to be noted that the first decision was based on the fact that the petitioner filed the writ petition after a period of fifteen years from the date cause of action accrued to him. Again in the second case, the writ petition was filed after a delay of eleven years. Thus, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of the present case. 6. It is not in dispute that the appellant underwent surgery at the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. It is also not in dispute that he paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- against that bill raised by the Institute. The only ground on which the bill was not entertained by the State Government was that the appellant did not obtain its permission before undergoing surgery at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. It appears to us that the State Government failed to give proper consideration to the fact that the appellant felt chest pain on 5.12.1996 while he was on leave at New Delhi. He was removed to the hospital. There was hardly any time for the appellant to obtain requisite permission from the State Government. While being admitted in the hospital, the appellant on 18.12.1996 underwent surgery. To expect a person who is undergoing bypass surgery to seek permission from the State Government from hospital bed is absolutely unreasonable. He was removed to the hospital. There was hardly any time for the appellant to obtain requisite permission from the State Government. While being admitted in the hospital, the appellant on 18.12.1996 underwent surgery. To expect a person who is undergoing bypass surgery to seek permission from the State Government from hospital bed is absolutely unreasonable. The concerned authority ought to have considered that a person admitted in the hospital in such a state of health is not expected to ask the State Government to accord permission to him for surgery. The first concern of a patient and his relatives is to save his life. It is admitted position that the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre is recognised by the State Government for the purposes of undergoing bypass surgery. This being so, there was no justification for not entertaining the request of the appellant for grant of Ex-post-facto sanction for undergoing bypass surgery at the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, on a technical plea. Justice must not be sacrificed at the alter of technicalities. 7. The failure of the State to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,80,000/ to the appellant without cogent reason was a continuing wrong, and, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the appellant in moving the writ petition for enforcement of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The delay was on the part of the State in not entertaining the claim of the appellant for the amount which he had spent at the Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. In the matter of this nature the State must take a decision tempered with mercy. 8. In the circumstances, the appeal succeeds and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.2.2002, is set aside. Respondent State is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the appellant which amounts the latter paid to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre for his treatment, within a period of two months. *******