PIL 101/2015. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberPIL 101/2015
Judgement DateMarch 30, 2021
CourtGauhati High Court

PI L ( Suo Motu) No.101 of 2015




( Aj it Sin gh , C.J.)

Mr.HK Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. SS Dey, learned Amicus Curiae.

Ms. I ndrani Baruah, Superintendent of Police, Criminal I nvestigation Department, Guwahati, is present in person.

Mr. D Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. BN Sarma, learned Senior Government Advocate and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Government Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.AM Bora, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.

The petitioner-Sri Pabitra Hazarika-is a member of an NGOHuman Rights Law Network, Guwahati Chapter-who sought for registration of this Public I nterest Litigation (PI L, in short) alleging illegal sale of pacemakers in private hospitals in Kolkata, which were meant for Below Poverty Line (BPL) category patients in the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital as per a scheme of the Government.

  1. I t has been alleged that some of the pacemakers which were supplied by one Canon Devices Pvt. Ltd Kolkata, amongst 202 numbers of pacemakers @ Rs. 49,500/ -, pursuant to NI T floated in the year, 2010 and sanctioned vide letter dated 26/ 02/ 2010 of the Director of Health Services, Assam, were illegally sold in private hospital in Kolkata. Therefore, it was prayed that some action may be taken against the persons/ officers indulging in those illegal/ corrupt practices.

  2. The Respondent No.1-Commissioner and Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam, has clarified in his affidavit-in-opposition that the Superintendent of Police, CI D, Assam

    caused an inquiry into the aforesaid allegations and it has been reported vide an interim-report that although Government of Assam decided to procure and stock only single chamber pacemakers (Model-SES01, Sensia SI I , Pacing system with lead and PLI ), on clinical / medical reasons, as requested by the doctors, superior quality pacemakers were used on few occasions as per demands of patients and supplier issued the required variety of superior pacemakers which was higher in cost than the supplied single chambered pacemakers. When the stock of 202 pacemakers were delivered by the supplier, the said supplier, in lieu of eight super quality pacemakers issued by...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT