1 CGHC010259552026 2026:CGHC:28383 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3538 of 2026 1 - Sanjeev Agrawal S/o Raghunandan Agrawal Aged About 57 Years Ex- Government Member Central Jail Raipur And Ex- Member Division Railway Consumer Advisor Committee R/o 20, In Front Of Aanijya Bhawan, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director, Health Services, Sector- 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Divisional Joint Director Health Services, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector, Distt- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Distt- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 6 - Preetam Kewat Post Store Keeper, Health Department, Distt- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 7 - Shri K.K. Verma Post Compounder, Health Department, Distt- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 8 - Shri Rahul Jaiswal Post Medical Lab Technologist Health Department, Distt- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 9 - Dr. Devendra Singh Paikra, Post In Charge Civil Surgeon, Distt- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 10 - Dr. Prabhat Prabhakar Chandra, Community Health Center, Bilha District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 11 - Dr. I Nageshwar Rao In Charge Chief Medical And Health Officer, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 12 - Dr. A.I. Minj Post Store In Charge Officer, Health Department, Distt- Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to consider the Inquiry Report submitted by the duly constituted Inquiry Committee pursuant to the petitioner's complaint dated 18.01.2024 and to take an appropriate decision thereon, including initiation of such departmental or other proceedings as may be warranted against Respondent Nos. 6 to 12, strictly in accordance with law and within stipulated time period. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to place on record the present status of the action taken on the Inquiry Report and, if noaction has been taken, to assign reasons therefor by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 3 10.3 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent No. 1 ad 2 to ensure that the recommendations contained in the Inquiry Report are duly examined and acted upon expeditiously in accordance with law, without being influenced by any extraneous consideration. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent No. 1 to examine the inaction, negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of Respondent authorities in failing to act upon the recommendations contained in the Inquiry Report despite the lapse of a considerable period, and thereafter to initiate appropriate departmental or disciplinary proceedings against the officers found responsible, strictly in accordance with law. 10.5 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a complainant as well as a social activist. It is contended that the petitioner had submitted certain complaints against the private respondents, pursuant to which the competent authority conducted a detailed enquiry. Upon completion of the enquiry, it was found that the private respondents were guilty of the allegations levelled against them. It is, therefore, submitted that despite the enquiry report, no consequential action has been taken by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel prays that an appropriate direction be issued to the competent authority to 4 act upon the enquiry report and proceed against the private respondents in accordance with law. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the enquiry pursuant to the petitioner's complaint has already been concluded and the petitioner's role as a complainant stands exhausted. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being only the original complainant or a whistleblower, has no legal or enforceable right to seek a direction from this Court compelling the authorities to take action against the private respondents on the basis of the enquiry report. According to the learned State counsel, the petitioner lacks the necessary locus standi to maintain the present petition for such a relief, and the decision as to whether any further action is required on the basis of the enquiry report lies exclusively within the domain of the competent authority in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner is merely the original complainant at whose instance an enquiry was conducted by the competent authority. The enquiry having already been completed, the petitioner's role as a complainant stands exhausted. If the enquiry report discloses any misconduct or irregularity on the part of the private respondents, it is for the 5 competent State authorities to independently examine the report and take such action as may be warranted in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner cannot seek a writ directing the respondent authorities to give effect to the enquiry report or compel them to initiate a particular course of action. The competent authorities are vested with the statutory power and discretion to consider the enquiry report and proceed further, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law. In the absence of any enforceable legal right, the petitioner has no locus standi to seek the relief prayed for in the present petition. 7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. 8. No order as to costs. sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge vishakha