SRI D. S. N v. PRASAD BABU

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the ...RESPONDENTS nature of writ of mandamus i) by directing the 3'd respondent to conduct the re-postmortem of petitioner's son dead bodV K. Nagendra Babu @ Babu which was buried at Santhanuthalapadu Village, Prakasam District with the help of Sth respondent by in any hospital except 4th respondent. ii) by directing the 2nd respondent to investigate in to the matter and take appropriate action. and consequently direct the respondents to take action against concerned, if it is found that there is lapse in conducting post mortem. l.A. NO: { OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 30675 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondent nos. 3 and 5 to forthwith conduct re-postmortem on the body of K. Nagendra Babu @ Babu which was buried at Santhanuthalapadu Village, Prakasam District and submit report to his Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. KARIBASAIAH (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the ResPondent No.l: GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE Counse! for the Respondents No. 3 & 5: SRI R. LA(MIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI D. S. N. V. PRASAD BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SC FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT The Court made the following: ORDER ,/-\. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.248,14 OF 2016 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking for the following relief: "to issue appropriate writ or order or direction, more Particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by directing the respondent No.3 to conduct the re-post mortem examination of petitioner's son dead body K.Nagendra Babu @ Babu which was buried at SanthanuthalaPadu Village, Prakasam Distic-t iith the help of respondent No.5 in any hospital except respondent No.4 and by directing th6 respondent No.2 to investigate in to the matter and take ailpropriate ac*ion and oonsequently direct the respondenb tro take ac'tion against concemed if it is found that there is lapse in conducting post mo(em and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

2. None appeared for the petitioner. I have heard Mr. R.Laxmikanth Reddy' learned 3. Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 5 and learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health appearing for respondent No.4. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing orc behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 5, submits that upon receipt of the report regarding the death, F.l.R. No'59 of 2016 was registered on the file of the RPS, Warangal. Following due investigation, a final report was filed on 11'05.2016 before the Executive Magistrate, Warangal, vide S.R. No.20 of 2016. lt is :1 l, 2 wp_24844 NIR,] -2016 therefore contended that nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition. 5. The learned Government pleader for Medical and Health for respondent No.4 submits that the post_mortem examination, conducted pursuant to the incident, confirmed that the cause of death was natural. Consequenfly, a post_mortem report to this effect was issued. lt is also emphasized that the petitioner, upon receiving custody of the dead body, made a categorical statement before the Sub-lnspector of police, GRp, Warangal, stating that he entertained no suspicion against any individual in connection with the death, and requested that the body be handed over after post-mortem examination for cremation. ln these circumstances, the allegation that the poslmortem examination was improper is wholly unfounded. 6. I have carefully perused the material available on record. 7. The petitioner seeks a direction for conducting a repost_ mortem examination of the body of his son, who passed away on 29.03.2016, alleging that further investigation is warranted. According to the petitioner, the body was interred at santhanutharapadu viilage, prakasam District. However, nearry nlne years have since elapsed. At this belated stage, any r 3 NTR,., Wp_24844 _2016 direction for a repost-mortem examination would serve no practical purpose and would amount to a futile exercise.

8. Accordingly, as no live cause remains for adjudication, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY// I Sd/.L.VIJAYA LA)(MI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI M. KARIBASAIAH, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI D. S. N. V. PRASAD BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at ' Hyderabad. [OUTJ

6. One CC to SC for Central Government [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies (e MP PMK t I HIGH COURT DATED:2510812025 sEH1Go e .c 22 nrc l.fffr ) J * ORDER WP.No.24844 ot 2016 DISMISS!NG THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS tL b \')-/ 2f-