Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed the decision of the State of West Bengal to confer "Bangabibhusan" award on the respondent No. 2.
(2.) The petitioner appears in person. The petition is being heard on remand pursuant to a judgment and order dated September 10, 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in M.A.T. No. 916 of 2015 with CAN 6025 of 2015 (Dr. Kunal Saha v/s. State of West Bengal & Ors.). The petitioner was initially held not to have locus. On appeal the Hon'ble Division Bench has set aside such finding and has remanded the writ petition after holding that the petitioner has locus. Contentions of the petitioner
(3.) According to the petitioner the decision of the respondent No. 1 to confer an award on the respondent No. 2 violates Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner relies upon and refers to the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : 2009 Volume 9 Supreme Court Cases page 221 (Malay Kumar Ganguly v/s. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.) as well as : 2014 Volume 1 Supreme Court Cases page 384 (Balaram Prasad v/s. Kunal Saha & Ors.) and submits that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found the respondent No. 2 to be guilty of professional misconduct. It has found the conduct of the respondent No. 2 to be unbecoming of a doctor. It has imposed a penalty on the respondent No. 2. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 1 ought not to have taken the decision to confer the award. He refers to : 2010 Volume 13 Supreme Court Cases page 586 (In re: Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, HPSC & Ors.) in this regard. The decision to confer such award on the respondent No. 2 in view of the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the respondent No. 2 as noted in the aforesaid two decisions violates Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The State authorities are to act in aid of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India so far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned. Conferment of award to the respondent No. 2 despite the observations of the Supreme Court against the respondent No. 2 is not acting in aid of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of India. It would also send a wrong signal to the persons concerned with the efforts to claim compensation for victims of medical negligence and have punishment awarded against persons of the medical profession guilty of medical negligence.;