1 2025:CGHC:23033 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 213 of 2022 1 - Dr. Prabhat Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Shri K.B. Shrivastava Aged About 62 Years Occupation Service , Specialist Pathologist , Posted In Government District Hospital, Bilaspur , Chahttisgarh R/o 204, Raghuveer Apartment , Vidhik Sewa Marg, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Health And Family Welfare , Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex , Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Medical Council Through Its Registrar , First Floor, Dr. Balmukund Sharma Clinic, Kankalipara, Near Nagar Nigam Ayurvedic Hospital , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Venktesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Satish Gupta, Dy. G.A. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the following relief(s):- “10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the 2 petitioner for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate order/direction quashing the enquiry which is pending against the petitioner before Respondent no. 2 and direct the respondents to refrain from harassing the petitioner. 10.3 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate order/direction directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner for harassment and mental agony. 10.4 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent state authorities to enquire in to the matter and take strict actions the persons liable for providing the official documents of Respondent no. 1 to complainants. 10.5 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. 10.6 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to award costs of the proceedings.” 2. Brief facts of the case challenging the instant petition is that the so-called enquiry initiated by Respondent no. 2 against the petitioner in furtherance of vague and misconceived complaints made by Association of Surgeons of India State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur; Indian Society of Anesthesiologist Raipur and Dr. Anil Jain alleging unethical activity of the petitioner and that he is trying to destroy harmony and relationship amount colleague doctors. The action is being undertaken in a revengeful manner, in order to harass the petitioner who, in his capacity as the Secretary of the 3 Pathologist Association, C.G. had forward a complaint to the Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent no. 2 is acting in the most arbitrary manner which is in direct violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the enquiry which is going on against the petitioner at the instance of Respondent no. 2 are being carried out with malafides and ill-will against the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 is acting under the influence of complainants who have made false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that no action will be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the notice (Annexure P/3). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. A notice dated 05.02.2021 issued by the Respondent no. 2 was served upon the petitioner seeking his explanation within 7 days in response to various complaints made against him accompanied along with the said notice. The complaint dated 01.02.2021 is one made by Dr. Sudhir Tichkule in reference to the letter dated 29.06.2017 (annexure P/1) alleging that the petitioner has acted unethically and contrary to the brotherhood amongst medical professionals. Complaint dated 03.02.2021 has been made by one Dr. Vaibhav Jain under the letter head od Association of Surgeons of India. This complaint was also made in reference to 4 the letter Annexure P-1 and the complaint dated 03.02.2021 made by one Dr. Anil Jain was also made in reference to the letter Annexure P-1. 7. However, Respondent no. 2 has decided at present that no action will be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the notice (Annexure P/3). Therefore, there is no need to adjudicate the present petition. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to file petition, if any cause of action arises. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima