Progressive Cements Ltd. is a Government Company. The 100% share capital of the Company is owned by the President of India. The factory premises of the Company is situated 50 kms away from the Jaipur City Railway Station

Answer 2(a) Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. The term 'life' has been given a very expansive meaning. The term 'personal liberty' has been given a very wide amplitude covering a variety of rights which go to constitute personal liberty of a citizen. Its deprivation shall only be as per the relevant procedure prescribed in the relevant law, but the procedure has to be fair, just and reasonable. The facts of the case are similar to that of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1996 SC 2426). In this case, a mazdoor fell from a running train and was seriously injured. He was sent from one government hospital to another and finally he had to be admitted in a private hospital where he had to incur an expenditure of ₹ 17,000/- on his treatment. Feeling aggrieved at the indifferent attitude shown by the various government hospitals, he filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32. The Court has ruled that the Constitution envisages establishment of a welfare state, and in a welfare state, the primary duty of the government is to provide adequate medical facilities for the people. The Government discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centres to provide medical care to those who need them. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. The Government hospitals run by the State and the medical officers employed therein are duty bound to extend medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on the part of a Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21. In the present case there was breach of the said right of Bhima Ram guaranteed under Article 21 when he was denied treatment at the various Government hospitals which were approached even though his condition was very serious at that time and he was in need of immediate medical attention. In respect of deprivation of the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution the position is well settled that adequate compensation can be awarded by the court for such violation by way of redress in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.