WRIC/17645/2026 of DR. VIKAS MANDLOI Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17645 of 2026 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1.  Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G.K. Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2.  Petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs: "i. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 8/9.12.2025 (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition) passed by respondent no.4 Chief Medical Officer, Kushinagar. ii.  a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to not hinder in the peaceful practice of the petitioner as a surgeon in District Kushinagar."  3.  Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a doctor having degree of Master of Surgery (M.S.) duly registered with the U.P. Medical Council having registration no.83398 and he has been doing surgery. He submits that after a surgery being done by the petitioner he left the clinic, however the patient faced with some complications and consequently she was shifted to another hospital where she was declared dead. Thereafter, an FIR has been lodged and also a complaint has been filed against the petitioner before the respondent No.4/Chief Medical Officer. On the said complaint, an Inquiry Committee was constituted, which submitted its ex parte enquiry report on 28.11.2025. Based on the said report, the respondent No.4/Chief Medical Officer has passed the impugned order. It is contended that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner during enquiry and also before passing of the impugned order dated 8/9.12.2025. He submits that if the petitioner had Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Greesh Kumar Malviya, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sr. Advocate, Yash Malviya Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rohit Dwivedi Dr. Vikas Mandloi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) been given an opportunity of hearing, he would have demonstrated that there was no fault on his part.  4.  Learned Standing Counsel for the State would contend that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending before this Court, as the grievance of the petitioner can very well be looked into by the respondent No.4. 5.  In view of the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a detailed representation within a period of one month from today before the respondent No.4. If such a representation is filed, the respondent No.4 shall consider and decide the same, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and providing him all the materials that respondent No.4 wishes to rely upon against the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the representation by way of passing a speaking  and  reasoned  order.    For a period of two months or till a final decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner, whichever is earlier, the effect and operation of the order dated 8/9.12.2026 shall remain stayed.  May 6, 2026 Kuldeep WRIC No. 17645 of 2026 2 (Garima Prashad,J.)   (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad