GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA J.

The subject-matter of challenge in the appeal is a judgement and order dated 22nd December, 2014 by which the Learned Trial Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi and was not entitled to maintain the writ petition.

Briefly stated the facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:-

The writ petitioner, ordinarily a resident of the United States of America, accompanied by his wife Anuradha Saha came to Kolkata in the year 1998. Anuradha developed skin allergy. She was hospitalized and treated by a team of doctors comprising amongst others the respondent No.2. It was alleged that due to gross medical negligence of the respondent No.2 Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, amongst others, she died. The petitioner instituted both civil and criminal cases against the doctors including the respondent No.2 seeking to hold them liable for medical negligence which ultimately was decided in his favour on 7th August, 2009 in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly –Vs- Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors. and Kunal Saha –Vs- Sukumar Mukerjee & Ors. reported in (2009) 9 SCC 221.

The Supreme Court held that:-

“The treatment line followed by Dr. Mukherjee which entailed administration of 80 mg of depomedrol injection twice is not supported by any school of thought. The treatment line, in this case, does not flow from any considered affinity to a particular school of thought, but out of sheer ignorance of basic hazards relating to use of steroids as also lack of judgment.”

While the Supreme Court did not interfere with the order of acquittal from charge under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code but civil liability was fixed. The judgement of the National Commission holding to the contrary was set aside, the matter was remitted to the National Commission for determining the amount of compensation. Costs assessed at a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed upon the respondent No.2.

In an appeal from the order of the National Commission the matter was ultimately decided by a judgement of the Supreme Court passed on 24th October, 2013 in the case of Balaram Prasad –Vs- Kunal Saha & Ors. reported in (2014) 1 SCC 384 wherein the Supreme Court referring to respondent No.2 held as follows:-

“Since he is a senior doctor who was in charge of the treatment of the deceased, we are inclined to mention here that Dr. Mukherjee has shown utmost disrespect to his profession by being so casual in his approach in treating his patient. Moreover, on being charged with the liability, he attempted to shift the blame on other doctors. We, therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances, direct him to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the claimant in lieu of his negligence and we sincerely hope that he upholds his integrity as a doctor in the future and not be casual about his patients’ lives.”

The case of the writ petitioner is that he was shocked to know from a news item published in ‘Ei Samay’ on Friday 16th May, 2014 disclosing that 14 persons including the respondent No.2 herein had been selected for the prestigious “Bangabibhushan” award. He challenged the aforesaid act of the State by the present writ petition contending, inter alia as follows in paragraph 7:-

“That being deeply aggrieved, hurt and dissatisfied with the arbitrary, capricious and mala fide decision of Respondent no.1 with a mindless and deliberate attempt to glorify Respondent no.2 by selecting him to receive the prestigious “Bangabibhushan” award for his illustrious medical service which is in sharp contrast to the observations made by two separate benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that has found respondent No.2 as a negligent, reckless and unethical doctor (2009) SCC 9 221; (2014) SCC 1, 384, …..”

The writ petition was moved upon notice on 20th May, 2014 which was also the day when the awards were to be given away. Prayer for an interim order restraining the State from conferring award upon the respondent No.2 was made. On behalf of