Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Lokayukta in Complaint Case No.01/Lok (Police) 03/2008 is under challenge whereby and whereunder the recommendation has been made by him for taking panel action against the petitioner with a direction to communicate the action taken before him.
(2.) The brief fact of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that a complaint has been made by respondent No.7- Ravi Gupta inter alia stating therein that he has contacted with Dr. S.K. Agrawal/petitioner in Agrawal Nursing Home, Medical Hall, Lohardaga and on his advice it has been detected that the mother of the complainant suffers from stone in gall bladder and therefore she advised to undergo surgery in RIMS where the petitioner is posted. The petitioner has not been advised to admit his mother to RIMS rather at Ashirwad Hospital and Research Centre, Bariatu, where she remained there for 27 days under treatment and thereafter, mother of the complainant was discharged on 30.08.2014 but immediately thereafter returned to Lohardaga, his mother has complained about some physical trouble by which he has approached one local doctor namely Dr. Shailesh, who referred her to the Gurunanak Hospital, Ranchi. After remaining there for 15 days under the treatment of doctor of Gurunanak Hospital, she ultimately died. Thereafter he got information under the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005, that Dr. S.K. Agrawal is posted in RIMS and as such as per the report given the said doctor was practicing as private practitioner. Thereafter a complaint has been made before the Lokayukta by which notice was issued to the petitioner whereupon he has filed a show cause reply denying the allegation. The direction has been passed conducting an enquiry with respect to legality of doing private practice, however, the enquiry report has been submitted wherein the allegation of private practice has been found to be untrue but the said report has been accepted and the Hon'ble Lokayukta has recommended by recording the finding in the impugned order before the competent authority to take appropriate penal action and apprise about the action taken by the court. The said order is under challenge mainly on the ground of Section 8(b) which contains a provision that if any grievance has been ventilated by the aggrieved before any other forum, the Lokayukta will be precluded from exercising the jurisdiction as conferred under the provision of Lokayukta Act, 2001.
(3.) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta, Dr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the RIMS, and Mr. Abhay Prakash, A.C. to A.G. learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent have put their appearance. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Lokayukta has further submitted that the restrainment put under the provision of Section 8(b) of the Act, 2001 will not be applicable, since the case has been made out by the petitioner that a complaint has been made before the District Consumer Redressal Forum under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but the scope and spirit of the Act, 1986 is quite different to that of the spirit and intent of the Lokayukta Act, as because the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted to provide speedy remedy to the consumers in case of the deficiency in providing service by the service provider, while under the provision of Lokayukta Act, the grievance or the malpractices are to be inquired into and as such both are distinct in fields. It has further been submitted that the Hon'ble Lokayukta has acted in pursuance to the provision as contained under Section 12 of the Act, 2001 and therefore on the finding of fact no interference is warranted by this Court.;