IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 08/07/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
W.P. No.22394 of 2004
and
Writ Appeal Nos.1394 and 1395 of 2003
and
W.A.M.P.Nos.1775 & 1776 of 2003
and
W.P.M.P.No.27113 of 2004
Santhosh Hospitals
Private Limited,
Rep. by its Administrative Officer,
S.Chakravarthi,
1, Seventh Avenue,
Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. ..Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State Human Rights
Commission, Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Registrar,
35 Thiru Vi.Ka. Salai,
Chennai - 600 014.
2. The Chairman, Authorisation Committee,
and the Director of Medical Education,
Chennai - 600 010.
3. Thiru.M.R.Balasubramani,
13/20, Iyya Street,
Royapettah, Chennai - 600014.
4. Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan,
Nephrologist,
2, Raja Garden First Street,
Kotivakkam, Chennai -600 041.
5. The Secretary to the Government
of Tamil Nadu, Home Department,
Chennai - 600 009.
6. The Secretary to the Government of
Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Chennai - 600 009.. ... Respondents
W.A.No.1394 of 2003
Santosh Hospitals Private Limited,
Rep. by its Administrative Officer,
S.Chakravarthi,
1, Seventh Avenue,
Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Appropriate Authority
Human Organ Transplantation Act, 1994,
Office of the Director of Medical and
Rural Health Services,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Chairman, Authorisation Committee
and the Director of Medical Education,
Chennai - 600 010. ...Respondents
W.A.No. 1395 of 2003
Santosh Hospitals Private Limited,
Rep. by its Administrative Officer,
S.Chakravarthi,
1, Seventh Avenue,
Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Registrar,
35 Thiru Vi.Ka. Salai,
Chennai - 600 014.
2. The Chairman, Authorisation Committee
and the Director of Medical Education,
Chennai - 600 010.
3. Thiru.M.R.Balasubramani,
13/20, Iyya Street,
Royapettah, Chennai - 600014. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari for the reasons stated
therein.
Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order passed in W.P.Nos. 40101 & 41806 of 2002 dated 13.03.2003.
:O R D E R
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
This writ petition has been filed praying for the a Writ of Certiorari
to quash the impugned order of the first respondent/State Human Rights
Commission, Tamil Nadu dated 28.07.2004
2. Heard Mr.Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner; Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General for the State; Mr.G.
Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the State Human Rights Commission and
Mr.K.Govi Ganesan for the third respondent in the writ petition.
3. The petitioner claims to be a reputed hospital in Chennai.
After the enactment of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (
hereinafter referred to as ‘the Transplantation Act’), the petitioner applied
for registration under Section 10 of the Transplantation Act to the
appropriate authority viz., the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services,
Tamil Nadu for conducting transplantation of human organs. By order dated
01.09.1996, the registration certificate was issued to the petitioner in
Registration No.43670/E.7/4/95 valid for the period from 01.09.1996 to
31.08.2001 authorising the petitioner to allow kidney transplantation in its
hospital. The registration was renewed from 01.09.2001 to 31.08.2006, and the
same is valid and is in force.
4. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that one Dr.S.
Vijayaraghavan, is a reputed nephrologist. He has been conducting kidney
transplantation operations in various hospitals including the petitioner
hospital. He wanted to conduct kidney transplantation for one S. Seralathan
by removing one kidney from M.R.Balasubramani, the third respondent, in the
petitioner hospital. Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan is not an employee of the petitioner
hospital, but he is merely utilizing the facilities available in the
petitioner hospital for conducting kidney transplantation surgery.
5. In paragraph 5 of the petition it is alleged that an order of
approval being Ref.No.75141/H&D1/2001 dated 04.12.2001 together with an
affidavit of M.R.Balasubramani (Donor) signed by M.R.Balasubramani on
13.12.2001 and his wife Gomathi and attested by XXI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai – 8, and the affidavit of S.Seralathan ( Recipient) dated
13.12.2001 and attested by XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai were
produced by S.Seralathan through Dr. Vijayaraghavan, the nephrologist. Only
on receipt of the above mentioned documents the petitioner in the usual course
allowed the kidney transplantation for S.Seralathan in the petitioner hospital
which took place on 18 .12.2001.
6. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit it is stated that except
permitting surgery to be conducted in its theatre and the post operative stay,
the petitioner did not have any role in the transplantation procedure, which
was conducted by Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan.
7. In the affidavit dated 13.12.2001, which was attested by XXI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and signed by the Donor as well as
his wife, it was stated: –
” I further declare and state that the donation of kidney by me is a voluntary
one and there is no monetary consideration involved in it.”
8. It appears, however, that subsequently the third
respondent/M.R. Balasubramani gave a complaint to the first respondent/State
Human Rights Commission on 26.08.2002 against Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan who
conducted the transplantation to the effect that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was
agreed to be paid to the donor for donating one kidney, but only a sum of
Rs.45,000/- was paid at the time of the surgery, and the balance amount of
Rs.1,05,000/- has not yet been paid. Hence M.R. Balasubramani approached the
State Human Rights Commission for issuance of a direction for recovery of
Rs.1,05,000/- alleged to have been agreed by Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan to be paid
for the kidney.
9. The aforesaid complaint of Balasubramani to the State Human Rights
Commission states: –
” From
Balasubramani
13/20, Iyya Street,
Royapettah,
Chennai – 14.
To
Honourable Mr.Member
State Human Rights Commission,
Royapettah,
Chennai – 14.
Sir,
I have two grown up girls. I was not able to maintain my family with
my monthly income of Rs.1,600/-. Therefore I started borrowing. Ultimately
the debts became a great burden. I suffered because I could not repay the
debts. I became a mental patient. Myself, my wife and my daughters were
about to commit suicide. At that stage I thought I can donate one kidney and
with that money I can solve the problem. With this object I met a doctor. He
examined me. He told me that a person was fighting for his life and my kidney
can be transplanted to him. The doctor assured that the person who is
fighting for his life would pay me Rs.1,50,000/-. Because of the family
circumstances and the debt burden I gave my consent. On the date of kidney
transplantation I was paid Rs.45,000/-. He told that the balance would be
paid later. Now the doctor is refusing to make payment.
Even though four months time have passed after the transplantation I
have not received the money. When I approached the doctor he told me that
only a sum of Rs.45,000/- was agreed and threatened that if I demand anything
more he would do some thing to me and my family. Therefore my heart broke. I
approached the recipient of the kidney. He told me that he has nothing to do
with me and that I should approach only the doctor. I, therefore, humbly
request you to save me and my family.
Note: I came to know subsequently that he had conducted the transplantation
without the permission of the Government
Sir,
I forwarded this petition to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Letter
went to the Commissioner of Police from the C.M.Special Cell. After two
months Thiruvanmiyur police came to my house saying that they have received
the letter. They enquired my wife about this. They told my wife to inform me
when I returned and asked me to go to the police station next day. I met the
Writer. He told me that when he went to Santosh Hospital and enquired he was
informed that there was no such doctor. He wanted to know the residential
address of the doctor. The Writer told me that the doctor will come to you to
discuss and you bring here when he comes.
Sir, I request you to save me and my family. I have enclosed a copy.
Thanking you,
The address of the recipient The Doctor Yours
faithfully,
Seralathan Vijayaraghavan
5/65, Second Street, Besant Nagar
Workers Street,
(Balasubramani)"
Neelankarai
10. On the basis of the complaint of the third respondent, the State Human
Rights Commission issued summons to the petitioner, the second respondent
(Chairman, Authorisation Committee), and Dr.S. Vijayaraghavan, the fourth
respondent to appear before it on 18.10.2002. On that date, the second
respondent filed a counter affidavit before the State Human Rights Commission
stating that the approval letter submitted by M/s.Santosh Hospitals Private
Limited under Section 9(3) of the Transplantation Act in respect of patient
S.Seralathan is a bogus one. It was further contended that no such
application in respect of patient S.Seralathan, the donee, and
M.R.Balasubramani, the donor, was either submitted by the hospital or received
in the Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai. In the Authorisation
Committee meeting held on 04.12.2001 no such order was issued in favour of the
above individuals. The Chairman of the Authorisation Committee further
contended in his counter affidavit before the State Human Rights Commission
that the act of Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan who performed the renal transplantation
without the approval of the Authorisation Committee is highly irregular and
punishable under the Transplantation Act, and the petitioner should have
obtained prior permission or approval of the Authorisation Committee, and
without approval of the Authorisation Committee permitting to perform the
operation is highly irregular and the hospital’s registration is liable to be
suspended or cancelled. The Authorisation Committee also stated in its
counter affidavit that action was being taken by addressing a letter to the
Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and Member Authorisation
Committee, Chennai for enquiry into the matter and for considering the
cancellation of the registration of the institution.
11. A counter affidavit was filed by Santosh Hospitals Private
Limited/petitioner before the State Human Rights Commission in which it was
stated that one Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan, a Nephrologist wanted to conduct a kidney
transplantation for one S.Seralathan by removing one kidney from
M.R.Balasubramani, the complainant. An order of approval in Reference
No.75141/H&D1/2001 along with documents was produced by the recipient through
Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan. After receipt of the documents Santhosh Hospital in the
usual course allowed kidney transplantation for S.Seralathan which took place
on 18.12.2001. It was alleged that except for giving permission to
Dr.S.Vijayarag havan to conduct transplantation no other role was played by
the hospital in the transplantation procedure. It is alleged that the
hospital had nothing to do with the submission of the application and sending
of the authorization order.
12. Dr.S.Vijayaraghavan, who was the third respondent before the
State Human Rights Commission, also filed a counter affidavit before the
commission. In that he has stated that the recipient S.Seralathan himself
produced the certificate issued by the Authorisation Committee, and on
believing the same as true and genuine, the operation was duly performed.
Hence, he has alleged that he has not committed any irregularity.
13. It appears that while the enquiry was pending before the State
Human Rights Commission, the complainant M.R.Balasubramani filed an
application dated 02.07.2003 stating that he was withdrawing the complaint on
his own accord and requested the commission to dismiss the complaint as not
pressed. This application was rejected by the Commission since it was of the
view that the dispute was not between two individuals, but it was as to
whether the parties followed the provisions of the Transplantation Act, as
violation of the provision was a serious offence against the society. Hence
the Commission felt that a detailed enquiry was desirable.
14. Consequently Dr.Ravindran, Director of Medical Education, and
Dr.Anil Kumar, Deputy Director of Medical Education appeared before the
Commission and submitted that the permission order alleged to have been given
by the Authorisation Committee under Section 9(3) of the Transplantation Act
to perform the operation was a bogus one, and so the question of scrutinizing
the documents said to have been produced by the donor and the donee did not
arise.
15. Considering all the facts of the case, and also the fact that
the complainant had to donate one of his kidneys due to his poverty and to
escape from the clutches of his creditors, the Commission on humanitarian
grounds recommended the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-
to the complainant which could be recovered from the person responsible for
this heinous crime after detailed probe by the Crime Branch, CID. In
conclusion, the State Human Rights Commission by the impugned order made the
following recommendations:–
1)The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Secretariat,
Chennai shall order a detailed investigation by Crime Branch, CID and file
appropriate criminal case against the culprits who played with the life of the
poor people taking advantage of their pathetic condition.
2)The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Secretariat, Chennai on humanitarian consideration, shall pay a
sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to the complainant
Thiru.M.R.Balasubramani, 13/20, Ayyah Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014 as
compensation and shall recover the amount so paid from the guilty persons by
invoking appropriate provisions of law”.
16. Mr.Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 ( hereinafter referred
as the ‘Human Rights Act’) deals only with violation of human rights ‘by
public servants’ and not by others. He has submitted that the petitioner is
not a public servant, and hence the Human Rights Act had no application, and
consequently the impugned order was without jurisdiction and a nullity.
17. In this connection, the learned senior counsel has invited our
attention to Section 12(a) of the said Act, which states: –
” The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:
–
(a)inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any
person on his behalf, into complaint of –
(i)violation of human rights or abetment thereof; or
(ii)negligence in the prevention of such violation by a public servant;”
18. Mr.Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel, submitted that the
words “by a public servant” would govern both sub-clause (i) and subclause
(ii) of Section 12(a) of the Human Rights Act.
19. On the other hand, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for
the Commission, submitted that the words “by a public servant” governs only
sub clause (ii) and not sub-clause (i) of Section 12(a) of the Human Rights
Act.
20. In our opinion, the submission of Mr.Dinesh Dwivedi appears to
be correct, because if we read Section 12 along with Section 18 of the Human
Rights Act, whatever ambiguity there may have been in Section 12 of the Human
Rights Act gets clarified by Section 18 of the Human Rights Act. Section
18(1) states: –
” The Commission may take any of the following steps upon the completion of an
inquiry held under this Act, namely: –
(1)where the inquiry discloses, the commission of violation of human rights or
negligence in the prevention of violation of human rights by a public servant,
it may recommend to the concerned Government or authority the initiation of
proceedings for prosecution or such other action as the Commission may deem
fit against the concerned person or persons”
21. A perusal of Section 18 of the Human Rights Act shows that the
Commission can take action in the matter where the inquiry discloses the
commission of violation of human rights or negligence in the prevention of
violation of human rights by a public servant. Thus, the ambiguity, if any,
in Section 12(a) of the Human Rights Act gets removed by perusing Section 18
of the Human Rights Act.
22. This position becomes further clear on a perusal of Form-A of
the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (Procedure) Regulations, 1 997.
Clause 9 of which states: –
” Name, designation and address of public servant, who violated Human Rights
or by whose negligence the violation was not prevented ( Enter here all the
names and addresses if more than one is complained against)”
23. Similarly in Form-I of the National Human Rights Commission (
Procedure) Regulations, 1997, it is stated in clause-8: –
” Name, designation and address of the public servant by whom alleged
violation of human right was committed/abetted or who was negligent in
prevention of such violation
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(NOTE: If the complaint relates to Armed Forces, here specifically indicate
the Ministry/Department of the Central Government under which such Armed
Forces come)
24. Thus, a perusal of the provisions of the Act and the forms
annexed to the Regulations clearly indicate that the Human Rights Act deals
with violation of Human Rights by a public servant and not others. The
petitioner is surely not a public servant, and hence the Human Rights Act will
not apply to him at all.
25. It may be mentioned that the expression “public servant” has
been defined in Section 2(m) of the Human Rights Act as follows: –
” Public Servant shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 21 of the
Indian Penal Code”
26. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code states: –
” The words “public servant” denote a person falling under any of the
descriptions hereinafter the following, namely:
First—(Omitted by Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950)
Second—Every Commissioned Officer in the Military, Naval or Air Forces of
India
Third-Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether
by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions.
Fourth – Every Officer of a Court of Justice including a liquidator, receiver
or commissioner whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on
any matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document or
to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process,
or to administer any oath or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court;
and every person specially authorized by a Court of Justice to perform any
such duties;
Fifth – Every juryman, assessor, or member of panchayat assisting a Court of
Justice or public servant;
Sixth – Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been
referred for decision or report by any Court of Justice, or by any other
competent public authority;
Seventh – Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered
to place or keep any person in confinement;
Eighth – Every Officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to
prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to
justice, orto protect the public health, safety or convenience;
Ninth – Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take,
receive,keepor expend any property on behalf of the Government or to make any
survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government or to execute any
revenue process, or to investigate, or to report on any matter affecting the
pecuniary interests of the Government or to make, authenticate or keep any
document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government or to prevent
the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the
Government
Tenth – Every Officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive,
keep or expend any property, to make any survey or assessment or to levy any
rate of tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district or
to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights
of the people of any village, town or district;
Eleventh – Every person who holds any office in virtue of which he is
empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise as electoral roll or to
conduct an election or part of an election.;
Twelfth – Every person –
(a)in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or
commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government ;
(b)in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or
under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government Company as defined in
Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act 1 of 1956)”
A careful perusal of the definition of ‘public servant’ in Section 21 of the
Indian Penal Code shows that neither the petitioner hospital nor the
Authorization Committee constituted under Section 9(4) of the Transplantation
Act can be said to be a ‘public servant’.
27. It may be mentioned that under Section 9(4) (b) of the
Transplantation Act, the State Government has to constitute by notification an
Authorization Committee consisting of such members as nominated by the State
Government. Neither the Authorization Committee nor its members can be said
to be ‘public servants’ as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code,
because they do not fall within any of the categories mentioned in Section 21
of the Penal Code.
28. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 has no application to the facts of the
present case at all. Since the Human Rights Act was not applicable at all, we
fail to see how the provisions of the said Act could have been invoked, and
how the State Human Rights Commission could have taken cognizance of the
matter. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order dated 28.7.2004 made in
S.H.R.C Case No.5026/2002/SS is a nullity being without jurisdiction, and it
is hereby quashed.
29. However we cannot leave the matter at that. Though we are of
the view that the State Human Rights Commission had no jurisdiction in the
matter, we certainly share the concern and agree with the view expressed by
the Commission that the matter requires to be thoroughly probed, and those
responsible should be brought to book under the provisions of the
Transplantation Act, and/or Penal code or other penal statutes.
30. There is no dispute that Section 9(3) of the Transplantation
Act was violated in this case since the kidney of a person, who is not a near
relative, was removed and transplanted without prior approval of the
Authorization Committee. Even the alleged certificate of the Authorization
Committee was found to be a bogus one. Hence serious offences have been
committed which calls for a thorough probe into the matter and action need to
be taken including criminal prosecution of those found to be involved.
31. The very purpose of the Transplantation Act was to prevent
exploitation of poor persons by greedy doctors and other greedy persons.
32. A large number of incidents have come to light where poor
persons who were in dire need of money were exploited and one of their kidneys
removed. For instance, sometime back in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, it was found
that poor persons often coming from hilly areas or villages, were given
anesthesia, and later on on regaining consciousness they found that one of
their kidneys was removed. The same practice has been going on in many places
where poor persons have been deceived or exploited due to poverty. This
phenomenon has also been highlighted in the novel “Coma” by the American
writer Robin Cook.
33. A perusal of the complaint of Balasubramani (quoted earlier in
this judgment) prima facie shows that the Doctor took undue advantage of the
poverty of Balasubramani, who was in great financial distress, and hence the
latter agreed to donate one of his kidneys for Rs.1,50 ,000/- but for which he
was paid only Rs.45,000/-. We are not expressing any opinion about the
veracity of the complaint of Balasubramani as that has to be enquired into,
but if it is correct, it is indeed a very serious matter, and all persons
responsible deserve severe punishment under the provisions of the
Transplantation Act or Penal Code or other criminal statute.
34. Thus, while we set aside the impugned order of the State Human
Rights commission as one being without jurisdiction, we direct the authorities
concerned to make a thorough probe into the matter as also recommended by the
State Human Rights Commission in its impugned order, and appropriate action
should be taken against those who have committed this offence, if found true.
35. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed off.
36. As regards Writ Appeal No. 1394 of 2003, this relates to Writ
Petition No.41806 of 2002 in which the respondents were 1).The Appropriate
Authority, Human Organ Transplantation Act, 1994 and 2).The Chairman,
Authorisation Committee and the Director of Medical Education. The prayer in
W.P.No.41806 of 2002 was to quash the order of the first respondent dated
13.11.2002 and of the second respondent dated 29.10 .2002, and for restraining
the respondents from proceeding in any manner against the petitioner Santosh
Hospitals Private Limited or its Chairman, Directors and the employees
pursuant to the aforesaid orders. It may be noted that the first respondent
by order dated 13.11.2002 only directed Dr.Vijayaraghavan and the proprietors
of M/s.Santosh Hospitals to appear before the State Appropriate Authority with
all relevant documents on 25.11.2002. Writ Petition No. 41806 of 2002 was
dismissed by the learned single Judge by judgment dated 13.03.2003 stating
that the petitioner should appear before the Appropriate Authority, Human
Organ Transplantation Act, 1994. This order of the learned single Judge dated
13.03.2003 was challenged in Writ Appeal No. 1394 of 2003 in which an interim
order was obtained.
37. In our opinion, there is no merit in this writ appeal as the
order dated 13.11.2002 is only a show cause notice, and this Court does not
ordinarily interfere with show cause notices vide Special Director Vs. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse, AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa Vs. Divisional Commissioner,
Mysore, (2001) 10 SCC 639, Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs.
Ramesh K.Singh & Others, JT 1995 (8) SC 331 and M/s.Digivision Electronics Ltd
v. Indian Bank rep. by its Deputy General Manager and another, W.P.No.13056
of 2005 etc. batch delivered on 07.07.2005. Hence, W.A.No.1394 of 2003 is
dismissed since in our opinion the writ petition itself was pre-mature.
38. As regards Writ Appeal No. 1395 of 2003, this pertains to
W.P. No.40101 of 2002 filed by M/s.Santosh Hospitals Private Limited praying
for a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the State Human Rights Commission and
its officials from proceeding further in connection with the complaint of
Balasubramani before the State Human Rights Commission. The learned single
Judge in his judgment in Writ Petition No.40101 of 2002 has observed that the
petitioner can put forward his case before the State Human Rights Commission
as well as before the appropriate authorities under the Transplantation Act.
Since thereafter the State Human Rights Commission by its order dated
28.07.2004 has disposed off the complaint finally, Writ Appeal Nos. 1395 of
2003 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.
39. Moreover, we have held that the Human Rights Act does not
apply at all in this case, since there is no allegation of violation of Human
Rights by a public servant. Accordingly, W.A.Nos. 1394 and 1395 of 2003 are
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P and W.A.M.Ps are closed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
pv/
Copy to:
1. State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Registrar,
35 Thiru Vi.Ka. Salai,
Chennai – 600 014.
2. The Chairman, Authorisation Committee,
and the Director of Medical Education,
Chennai – 600 010.
3. The Secretary to the Government
of Tamil Nadu, Home Department,
Chennai – 600 009.
4. The Secretary to the Government of
Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Chennai – 600 009..