1 2025:CGHC:11406 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1387 of 2019 1 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Late Mannu Ram Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Khaparidih, Manoharpur, Post - Manoharpur, Tahsil - Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical Health Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Medical Health Officer Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 6 - Medical Superintendent, Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.03.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- to submit a status report on Bhuneshwari Sahu’s present condition; (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that best possible treatment and care is given to Bhuneshwari Sahu free of cost; (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of interim relief to the petitioner and the family to compensate for the expenses already borne and to be borne, loss of livelihood, care of children; (iv) Pass any other order the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the medical staff of respondent No.5 – Block Medical Health Officer, Lormi, District Mungeli committed negligence during sterilization and therefore, appropriate action may be taken against the erring medical staff. She would submit that an oral complaint was made by father of the victim before respondents No.3 & 4 but till date, no action has been taken. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that no written complaint was made before the responsible authorities, therefore, no action has been taken. He would submit that there was no negligence on the part of the medical staff and same is evident from perusal of Annexure-P/1. He would pray to dismiss the present petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 3 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner made serious allegations against the medical staff of respondent No.5 but did not file a written complaint, no action has been taken. Considering that no written complaint was made, the petitioner is permitted to submit a written complaint before the appropriate authority. If such a complaint is filed, the concerned authority shall take an appropriate decision on it expeditiously. 7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi