# Mamta Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 52 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-12-11 - **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation No. 2075 of 2019 - **Bench:** Biswanath Somadder, Neeraj Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mamta-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45009 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Sri Anand Kumar Roy, Addl. C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra A. Public Interest Litigation- PIL filed with the grievances that no medical facilities available in the dispensary of Court precinct - High Court has provided space within premises for functioning of the dispensary-Its administration is in the hands of the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj - An advocate fell unconscious due to heart attack. There was no stretcher or ambulance facility to take him comfortably and advocates had to carry him-Registrar General shall monitor basic requirements - In case of inadequacy he shall immediately bring the same to the notice of Chief Medical Superintendent, Prayagraj. (Para 3, 4 & 5) Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. (E-6) ## Text 52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2019)12 ILR A52 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BISWANATH SOMADDER, J. THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. Public Interest Litigation No. 2075 of 2019 Mamta Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: In Person Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Anand Kumar Roy, Addl. C.S.C., Sri Ashish Mishra A. Public Interest Litigation- PIL filed with the grievances that no medical facilities available in the dispensary of Court precinct - High Court has provided space within premises for functioning of the dispensary-Its administration is in the hands of the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj - An advocate fell unconscious due to heart attack. There was no stretcher or ambulance facility to take him comfortably and advocates had to carry him-Registrar General shall monitor basic requirements - In case of inadequacy he shall immediately bring the same to the notice of Chief Medical Superintendent, Prayagraj. (Para 3, 4 & 5) Public Interest Litigation is disposed of. (E-6) (Delivered by Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder, J.) 1. This public interest litigation (PIL) has been instituted by a practising advocate of this Court primarily for the purpose of seeking this Court's intervention in respect of the medical facility provided within the precinct of this Court. The writ petitioner / learned advocate has given certain instances in the writ petition which indicate lack of adequate medical facility within the precinct of this Court. By an order dated 27th November, 2019, an earlier Division Bench allowed the writ petitioner to implead the Chief Medical Superintendent, Prayagraj, as respondent no. 3 and also granted time to the respondents to file their respective counter affidavits. 2. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned advocate representing the High Court Administration hands-over a copy of parawise comments which he has received from the Registrar (Protocol). Certain paragraphs of the written instruction are required to be reproduced hereinbelow;- "3. That in reply to the contents of Paragraph Nos. 25 & 26 of the P.I.L. it is submitted that the High Court Dispensary was established in the premises of the High Court for the purpose of providing first aid in case of any emergency. In no way, it has been established as a substitute to a fullfledged hospital. The High Court has only provided space within the premises for functioning of the said Dispensary. The administration of Dispensary is in the hands of the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj. 4. That in reply to the contents of Paragraph No. 27 of the P.I.L. it is submitted that 02 (two) Ambulances are deputed at High Court for taking 4 All. Mamta Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 53 patient(s) in case of emergency to nearby hospital. 6. That in reply to the contents of Paragraph Nos. 29 of the P.I.L. it is submitted that the Stretcher are available inside the Ambulance and therefore instead of waiting for the Stretcher, Sri Amulya Ratna Srivastava was immediately carried on hands for the purpose of providing him first aid immediately." 3. The above - quoted paragraphs clearly reveal that the High Court Medical Unit / Dispensary has not been established to be a substitute of a full-fledged hospital. However, we are unable to accept the reasoning provided by the High Court Administration as contained in paragraph 6. Let us suppose that the only available ambulance is already commissioned for the purpose of taking someone who has suddenly fallen ill in the High Court to the hospital. Will that mean that no stretcher will be available till such time the ambulance returns? In other words, can it possibly mean that no other person can fall ill / sick within the High Court precinct till such time the ambulance returns? That will simply be a patently absurd proposition. We are, therefore, not at all satisfied with the above statement made in paragraph 6 of the parawise comments, especially in the backdrop of the statement made in paragraph 29 of the writ petition which reads as follows:- "29. That when Advocate Amulya Ratana Srivastava fell unconscious due to heart attack, there was no stretcher available to take him comfortably and advocates had to carry him on their own hand." 4. The medical facility within the High Court (by whichever name it is called) is required to have adequate infrastructure and logistics should also clearly be in place in order to provide standard first line of medical care to those who may fall sick / ill in the High Court. Such standard first line of medical care shall include not only availability of adequate wheel chairs / stretchers, but should also include a fully stocked medical dispensary equipped, inter alia, with essential life saving medication and oxygen. Basic diagnostic tools such as blood-sugar, blood pressure, E.C.G. monitors, etc., should be readily available. At least one of the ambulances should be equipped with intensive care facility so that a critically ill patient can be transported safely to the nearest hospital with minimum risk to the patient. An emergency contact number shall be provided - either by the Registry of this Court or by the Health Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh - by means of which any person can access the Medical Unit situated in the High Court premises. This contact number shall be made known to all by means of public display, especially at conspicuous places within the High Court premises. The Learned Registrar General shall ensure that a regular monitoring system in place so that the existing medical facility does not fall short of the basic requirements necessary for providing standard first line of medical care as detailed above. In the event any inadequacy is noticed, the Learned Registrar General or anyone connected with the High Court Administration shall bring the same immediately to the notice of the respondent no. 3 / Chief Medical Superintendent, Prayagraj, so that 54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES remedial action and corrective measures are taken. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 6. Let a copy of this order be transmitted forthwith by the learned Registrar General to the Chief Medical Superintendent, Prayagraj, as well as the Principal Secretary, Health, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. ---------- (2019)12 ILR A54 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. Crl. Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr. P.C.) No. 899 of 2005 Managing Director M/S Indofil Chemical Company ...Applicant Versus State of U.P.& Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Nitin Gupta, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. A. Criminal Law - Insecticide Act, 1968 - Section 29 (1)(a) & Section 33 - Vicarious liability - Offence by company - Officers of the company who may be said to be responsible to the company for conduct of its business or were in charge thereof. Held :- would arise only when an offence has been committed by a company. If company is not made an accused, alleging vicarious liability only against Managing Director, complaint cannot be maintained-Managing Director of Company can be responsible for vicarious liability only when there are specific allegations as to how he is responsible vicariously for the offence in question. (Para 7,10,11,12,13,19 & 20) Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C allowed. (E-3) List of cases cited: - 1. Aneeta Hada & Ors. Vs Godfather Travels & Tours Private Ltd. & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 661 2. Himanshu Vs. B. Shivamurthy & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 797 3. Maksud Saiyed Vs St. of Gujarat & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 668 4. Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs Sangita Rane (2015) 12 SCC 781 5. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89 6. Mah. St. Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Others (2010) 10 SCC 479 7. GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 505. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nitin Verma, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State of U.P. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 8976 of 2004 under Sections 29 (1)(a) of Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1968"), Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad.