1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2168 of 2021 1 - Goverdhan Prasad Jaiswal (Died) Through Legal Heir- Smt. Ravita Jaiswal D/o Goverdhan Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 51 Years R/o New Adarsh Nagar, Ward No. 53, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Inspector General Of Police Division Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Secretary Chhattisgarh State, Health And Family Welfare Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - State Human Rights Commission Near Dks Bhawan, Shashtri Chowk, Motibagh Chowk Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Government Hospital Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - Dr. B. R. Sahu Government Hospital Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 9 - Dr. Ravina Government Hospital, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Kumar Goswami, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, PL 2 to 5 & 7. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 15/09/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs:- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no.-3 to file criminal case against responsible authorities who are suppressing the whole matter. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to held a judicial enquiry in this whole matter which caused death of a young man. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to pay compensation to the family of deceased who was young and only earner of his family. 10.4 To direct the respondents to pay the cost of this litigation. 10.5 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. 2. Initially Goverdhan Prasad Jaiswal has filed this writ petition seeking the above stated relief, during the pendency of this writ petition, he passed away and therefore, his daughter was substituted in the writ petition as petitioner. 3. The facts which emerges for the writ petition is that the original petitioner was a social worker and raise voice for pubic suffering any kind of injustice. It is further pleading reflect that on 29.11.2020 a young unmarried 30 year old man died due to negligence of medical staff of Government Hospital Durg, District Durg, CG. It is further reflected that the patient was suffering from abdominal pain and fever and when he was admitted in the District Hospital, Durg and at 8 AM on the said date, the medical staff of district hospital was absent and certain allegation have been also leveled in the writ petition, as a negligence 3 of the hospital staff, the patient died and therefore, this writ petition was filed. 2. Reply has been filed by the State and denied all the averments in the writ petition stating that there was no negligence on the part of the medical staff and as such the writ petition itself is in the style as WPC has not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the document appended with the writ petition apparently, the negligence of the staff of the hospital is writ large, therefore, the relief which has been claimed by the petitioner may be granted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submission and submits that it is disputed question of fact and state has taken a categorical stand that there was no negligence on the part of the medical staff. Even otherwise, the petitioner if aggrieved by any non-action of the state is a public spirited person should have filed in WPPIL seeking for the above relief. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Prima facie the relief which has been claimed by the writ petition’s appears to be in the form of WPPIL. Though certain allegations have been leveled on the negligence of the part of the hospital but the same has been denied by the State authorities. Even otherwise, this Court cannot decide as to whether the hospital staff was negligence or not. It is disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to avail legal remedy if available under the law against the respondents. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Pawan