Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1065 (HP)

ANKU CHAUHAN v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-11-17

DEEPAK GUPTA, V.K.AHUJA

body2009
JUDGMENT Per V.K. Ahuja, J.-This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for directions to the State Government to continue the Health Sub Centre at village Chairh and for conducting an inquiry in regard to the construction of building for Health Sub Centre at Chairh. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that a Health Sub Centre was sanctioned for village Chairh in the year 1979 and it became functional on 29.8.1979. The same was opened under special ST/SC Component Plan for the benefit of SCs and STs. It was alleged that the population of SCs/STs was more in these villages and, therefore, it was sanctioned for Chairh. It was also alleged that it was centrally located village and it was convenient to most of the population of the area. It was further alleged that in the year 1991, tenders were also invited for the construction of building for Health Sub Centre, Chairh, but the construction was started at village Harog and without the approval of any authority, Health Sub Centre, Chairh, was shifted to village Harog. It was alleged that village Harog was situated at such a place from where two Primary Health Centers are at a distance of 2 KMs i.e. at Kufri and Fagu and shifting of the Sub Centre to Harog was to the disadvantage of the most of the population. It was further alleged that the representations were made to the State Government against the shifting and the Chief Medical Officer had recommended to the Director Health Services that the Centre has been wrongly shifted to village Harog. It was further alleged that by a decision taken on 28.7.2005, Health Sub Centre was again shifted to village Chairh and after one year, the said Sub Centre was again shifted to village Harog. The main grievance of the petitioner is that since the Centre sanctioned at Chairh was catering to the population of Scheduled Castes surrounding Chairh and, therefore, the Centre was wrongly shifted to Harog and the directions should be issued to the State Government to open the Health Sub Centre at village Chairh and order an inquiry in regard to the shifting. 3. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent, who filed reply. 4. 3. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent, who filed reply. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the one letter written by Block Medical Officer to Chief Medical Officer dated 11.7.2005 (Annexure P-4) as well as Annexure P-5 letter written by the Chief Medical Officer to the Director Health Services dated 14.7.2005. Thereafter, there is another letter written by the Director Health Services to Principal Secretary (Health), to the Govt. of H.P., (Annexure P-6) dated 22.7.2005, in which all have recommended that Centre should have been opened at Chairh. On the strengthen of these letters, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Centre was wrongly shifted to Harog and as such, the same should be shifted again to Chairh. 6. A perusal of the reply filed by the State Government shows that a Sub Centre was sanctioned for Chairh and funds were also allocated to the tune of Rs.85,000/- for construction of a building, but the land for the construction of a Health Sub Centre could not be made available by the local public/representatives to the PWD authority at village Chairh at that time. A copy of the letter written by the Executive Engineer, Theog Division, H.P.P.W.D. Theog, dated 5.5.1983 has also been attached with the reply. It was further alleged that the funds remained unutilized for quite sometime and the land was made available in village Harog and was transferred in the name of Health Department and the construction of the building was done some where in the year 1996. It was also pleaded in the reply that on completion of the building at Chairh, it started functioning in the year 1998 and no representations were received from the village Chairh during the time of construction/shifting of Sub Centre till the year 2005. 7. It is clear from a perusal of the above facts that the construction of the building took place in between 1996-1998 and the Health Centre is being run at Harog since 1998 till today. There is nothing on record to show that it was shifted again in between to Chairh as alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition. 7. It is clear from a perusal of the above facts that the construction of the building took place in between 1996-1998 and the Health Centre is being run at Harog since 1998 till today. There is nothing on record to show that it was shifted again in between to Chairh as alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is also clear from the reply filed by the State Government that since the building was not made available at Chairh, it was shifted to Harog and land was transferred and construction was started in the year 1996 onwards, but till the building was completed in 1998 or till 2005, no representations have been placed on record, which may have been made by the villagers of Chairh against the construction and shifting of Sub Centre at Harog. Once the land was not made available at Chairh and the construction of the Sub Centre was made at Harog, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim after so many years that the Sub Centre should be again shifted to Chairh. The public funds have been utilized for construction of the building, which is functioning at Harog since 1998 and as such, it cannot be said that there is any justification for shifting of the Health Sub Centre. 8. Apart from the above, coming to the plea of the petitioner that recommendations have been made by the Block Medical Officer, Chief Medical Officer or the Director Health Services that the most suitable place was Chairh. All these recommendations are of the year 2005 i.e. after the Sub Centre was in existence and had started functioning since 1998 i.e. for the last seven years. These authorities are only recommendatory authorities and the decision has to be taken by the State Government in public interest. The mere fact that these authorities has recommended that the suitable place was Chairh, the State Government is not bound to take a decision on that basis since other conditions also come in the way including the question as to whether the land was available at Chairh or not. The mere fact that these authorities has recommended that the suitable place was Chairh, the State Government is not bound to take a decision on that basis since other conditions also come in the way including the question as to whether the land was available at Chairh or not. Once the land was not made available at Chairh and public funds have been utilized for construction of the building of the Health Sub Centre at Harog, which is functioning for the last seven years, the petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2006 cannot be said to be bonafide. The petitioner should have taken steps by getting resolution passed from the Panchayat or exercising other option available to them before the construction started or before the Sub Centre started functioning in the year 1998. In view of the fact that the Sub Centre is running since 1998, there was no reason for the petitioner to have approached in the year 2006 for shifting of the Sub Centre, Chairh and for all those years, the petitioner had been silent and had not taken any effective steps to get the construction work stopped or to get the same shifted to Chairh by making available the land and getting the Centre started at Chairh. 9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the petition to allow the same at this stage and as such, the petition is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. 10. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, all the Miscellaneous Applications, pending if any, shall also stands disposed of.