Smt Savitha vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 4030 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A. No.1090 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
                            IN
              W.P. No.14844 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:

SMT. SAVITHA
W/O LATE DR. RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O .ROYAL PARTHASARATHY APARTMENTS
FLAT NO.S-5, NO 36/1, 5TH CROSS
BANK OF BARODA COLONY
PUTTENAHALLI, J P NAGAR
7TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560078.
                                             ... APPELLANT

(BY MR. PRAKASH SALMANI, ADV., FOR
    MR. SRIHARI R. DESHPANDE, ADV.,)

AND:

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARTY
      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
      FAMILY WELFARE, VIDHANA SOUDHA
      BENGALURU - 560001.

2.    MILANN
      THE FERTILITY CENTER
      (A UNIT OF BACC HEALRTHCARE PVT LTD)
      NO.3 AND 7, EAST PARK ROAD
                                2



    KUMARA PARK EAST
    BENGALURU - 560001.

                                             ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. VANI H, AGA)
                             ---

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.08.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
No.14844/2021 ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT No-2 TO CONTINUE IVF TREATMENT TO THE
APPELLANT.

      THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                         JUDGMENT

In this intra court appeal, the appellant, inter alia, had

sought the following reliefs in his petition before the learned

Single Judge:

i) Issue a writ of mandamus issue direction directing the directing the 2nd respondent to continue IVF treatment to the petitioner.

ii) grant such other directions or order or writ as may deem fit to this Hon'ble Court may kindly be issued.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition

by an order dated 16.08.2021 and has held as under:

In this petition the relief sought for, is against Respondent No.2 which is not a State under State Under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is not maintainable.

Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to

point out as to how respondent No.2 is amenable to the writ

jurisdiction of this court.

4. The respondent No.2 is not the State within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,

the writ petition is not maintainable. However, the appellant

is at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be

available to her in law.

With the aforesaid liberty, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS