Allahabad High Court
DR. VIKAS MANDLOIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The order dated 8-9 December 2025 was quashed for being passed without a hearing, and the petitioner was directed to file a representation for a fresh hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, a registered surgeon, challenged an order dated 8-9 December 2025 issued by the Chief Medical Officer of Kushinagar, which was based on an ex parte inquiry report following a patient death after surgery performed by the petitioner. He alleged that he was denied a hearing before the inquiry and the impugned order, violating principles of natural justice, and sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order and a mandamus directing authorities not to impede his surgical practice. The State argued that the grievance could be addressed by the respondent authority and that the petition need not be entertained. The Court held that the order was indeed passed without affording a hearing and therefore could not stand, directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation within one month and stay the operation of the order pending a reasoned decision. Consequently, the petition was disposed with directions for a fresh hearing and a stay of the impugned order.
Issues considered
- Whether the order passed by the Chief Medical Officer without affording a hearing violates the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain the authorities from hindering the petitioner’s practice as a surgeon.
- Whether the petition is maintainable given the availability of alternative remedial mechanisms before the respondent authority.
Subjects
- natural justice
- quashing order
- mandamus
- medical negligence inquiry
- right to hearing
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17645 of 2026
Dr. Vikas Mandloi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Greesh Kumar Malviya, Hritudhwaj
Pratap Sahi, Sr. Advocate, Yash
Malviya
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rohit Dwivedi
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
WRIC No. 17645 of 2026
2
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.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
May 6, 2026
Kuldeep
Digitally signed by :-
KULDEEP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…