Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya,J. This Writ Petition in public interest, has been preferred by the petitioner-in-person to direct the respondent to discontinue the system of pay wards in the Government Hospitals at Chennai. 2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a firm, manufacturing scientific instruments used for research and development. He claims to be the Founder Trustee and Convenor of one or other non-government organisation for the benefit of public in general. 3. On appearance, the petitioner-in-person delivered long lecture on the sufferings of poor and their treatment in the Government Hospitals, and then attacked the Governments policy to have the pay wards in the Government Hospitals at Chennai. It is informed that in January 2008, the Department of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of Tamil Nadu opened special pay wards in the General Hospitals and operating such wards in Gastroenterology Department in Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai, Special Class Maternity Wards in Government Women and Children Hospital, Egmore, Chennai and Kasturibai Gandhi Government Hospital, Triplicane, Chennai for the past few years. Against such a decision, the petitioner claims to have expressed his opinion through Media, mentioning the harm being caused to the under-privileged and poor sections of the Society. 4. It was also submitted by the petitioner that India being a poorest nation in the World, is burdened with innumerable communicable and non-communicable diseases and nutritional deficiencies and our public health delivery system has not been able to deliver the quality and efficient service to the poor and marginalised persons. The track record of the Government, in terms of a providing quality medical, primary health care and education is extremely poor in comparison with the developing nations in the World. It was further submitted that India is one of the lowest Governmental investment nations in primary health and indoor-patient medical care compared with all other developing countries and some of the poorest nations. It is an uphill task to catch-up the countries with China, Brazil etc. Of the total population, only 3.5% who are the Government staff and industrial workers, is covered by the health insurance. 5. In the Writ Petition, certain data are not supported by any evidence. It is an uphill task to catch-up the countries with China, Brazil etc. Of the total population, only 3.5% who are the Government staff and industrial workers, is covered by the health insurance. 5. In the Writ Petition, certain data are not supported by any evidence. According to the petitioner, more than 34% of our population is below-poverty-line (BPL) who are suffering from deprivation and the Central Government has still managed to provide a budget of Rs.96,000 crores in the current financial year for Defence; but only a sum of Rs.15,000 crores for Health. As per the Website of the Tamil Nadu Government, the total number of beds in the Government Hospitals put together is 21,285. If approximate population of the State is taken as 6.2 crores, 3.4% beds are available for 10,000 population. It was submitted that the poor will suffer and marginalised will be left to the mercy of private medical practitioners and private hospitals, whose motive is commerce first and service the least/last. 6. It was further submitted that the Government has tried to justify the special pay wards on the ground that they will provide quality treatment on par with the private hospitals like Appollo Hospitals, etc., at half a cost of it. According to the petitioner, there are basic flaws in this approach as poor and the middle class cannot pay for even such cost, without resorting to borrowing and selling of assets. 7. In the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition, while reports of the newspapers published in the New Indian Express, the Hindu etc., have been extracted, a copy of the Government Notification regarding the pay wards has not been enclosed therein, except a Government Order of the year 2003, in G.O.Ms.No.94, Health and Family Welfare (E1) Department, dated 15. 2003, indicating the ratification and revision of the rates of one Hospital or the other. In the absence of any such Government decision in the form of Notification of the year 2008 regarding the starting of special pay wards, it is not possible to determine whether such a decision will go against the poor or it will go in favour of some advantageous class. 8. In the absence of any such Government decision in the form of Notification of the year 2008 regarding the starting of special pay wards, it is not possible to determine whether such a decision will go against the poor or it will go in favour of some advantageous class. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that no definite answer can be given in regard to pay wards without any instructions from the State and further stated that no case of public interest is made out. 9. We have heard the petitioner-in-person and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State and also perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the other records. 10. From the averments, it would be evident that mere certain statements have been made which are not based on any records/evidence. It is also not clear whether they are mere submissions of the petitioner before the Court and/or true to the knowledge of the petitioner or true to the information derived from the records. 11. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, the Government Notification regarding the special pay wards of the year 2008, has not been enclosed and therefore, it is not possible to decide whether such Notification is issued by the State constituting the special pay wards for one or other Department of the Government Hospitals at Chennai is proper or not. 12. It cannot also be presumed that only in the Government Hospitals, poor are treated and no affluent persons goes to the Government Hospitals or that the affluent person only goes to private hospitals such as Appollo Hospitals etc.; on the other hand, the presumption will be that persons irrespective of their status go and avail the benefits of the Government Hospitals, if treatment is given without any cost. Those who are Government employees, generally, as per their service conditions, are supposed to be treated in the Government Hospitals and only in appropriate cases, the matter may be referred by the Doctor or Board of Doctors for treatment in a private hospital. Those who are Government employees, generally, as per their service conditions, are supposed to be treated in the Government Hospitals and only in appropriate cases, the matter may be referred by the Doctor or Board of Doctors for treatment in a private hospital. In such a situation, as the presumption is that both the affluent and the poor persons are treated alike in Government Hospitals, if the Government intends to charge certain cost/fee from those who are affluent and the ones who have some benefit of Government treatment, it cannot be held to be arbitrary or the policy against the poor. Mere constitution of special pay wards does not amount to a Government Policy to charge anything from poor, nor can it be presumed that it will go against the poor patients. Thus, in the absence of any policy decision of the Government, it cannot be presumed that the poorer patients will suffer due to denial of such treatment to them without any fee/cost. 13. This Court specifically asked the petitioner as to what sort of business he is doing, as in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, he has stated that he is a resident of Chennai and is the Managing Director of a firm, manufacturing scientific instruments. We also wanted to know as to how he could get certain information, as orally the petitioner was making various statements with regard to one or other Hospital. The petitioner specifically informed the Court that he is manufacturing scientific instruments useful for research and development, as stated in paragraph 2 of the affidavit and he is also supplying such scientific instruments to the Government Hospitals at Chennai. 14. Apart from the aforesaid fact that no case is made out by the petitioner, as was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, we also find that some personal interest of the petitioner is involved in the matter, as he is one of the suppliers of the scientific instruments to the Government Hospitals at Chennai. 115. We find no merits in this public interest litigation, which is accordingly dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.