Order : The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….. to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the Memo no:20680/H2/2016, dated 02.09.2016 contemplating to shift the primary health center from Prasangulapadu to Pamidipadu, Prakasham district, as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, against the provisions to the constitution of India, being in contravention of Article 21 & Article 47 of the Constitution of India and while it was principles of natural justice and set aside the same…..” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Government of Andhra Pradesh sanctioned establishment of Primary Health Centre (PHC) in Prasangulapudu village in the year 1988. The petitioner had donated land with a service motive for the purpose of making construction of PHC, that all the villagers in Prasangulapadu and also people from nearby villages namely Pothavaram, Kaavurivaripalem, Anubroluvaripalem, Pamidipadu, Kanagalavaripalem, Rachapudi, Mallampativaripalem and Kallagunta, would get primary health. Accordingly, the PHC was built by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The PHC was granted under “Telugu Grameena Kranthi Padakam” where under 30% of the cost of the construction will have to be borne by the villagers by way of donation and the government would contribute the remaining 70% of the cost of constructions. Various pupils have donated money and material for the purpose of construction of the said PHC. Thus, the villagers have vested interest in PHC. While so, the Government has sanctioned 92 lakhs in the year 2014 towards further development of primary health center and the same was also granted by subsequent governments. While things stood thus, the Government intends to shift the Primary Health Center from Prasangulapadu village to Pamidipadu village. The distrance between Prasangulapadu village to Pamidipadu village is thirty (30) kilometres. The 1 st respondent issued proceedings vide Memo No.206860/H2/2016, dated 02.09.2018 permitting to shift the PHC from Prasangulapadu village to Pamidipadu village. Hence, the petitioner made representation to the 3 rd respondent having obtained 274 signatures of villagers requesting the authorities not to shift the PHC and to use the grant of 92 lakh for the development of PHC. But no action has been taken. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents in shifting the primary health centre, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. But no action has been taken. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents in shifting the primary health centre, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court, vide order, dated 20.02.2017 has granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to issuance of Memo No.206860/H2/2016, dated 02.09.2016 issued by the 1 st respondent. 4. The 3 rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has sanctioned 200 Primary Health Centres in the State vide G.O.Ms.No.135, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated 16.03.1988. Accordingly, the Government accorded sanction for establishment of 194 Primary Health Centres with effect from 01.07.1986 by sanctioning the staff and salaries. Accordingly, the Government established PHC in Prasangulapadu village in the year 1994. But there is no recorded evidence showing that the residents of the Prasangulapadu village have contributed an amount to the tune of 30% of the expenditure for the construction of PHC. The Government sectioned Ninety lakh rupees to the PHC for its development in 2014, but the said sanctioned amount was not released by the finance department for the reasons not know. It is further stated that the Pamidipadu village is well developed when compared to Prasangulapadu village. Originally, the PHC at Prasangulapadu is identified as 24x7 PHC. But as the out patients are not sufficient for running the PHC round the clock, it is converted into a day PHC i.e., from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. and if the PHC is established at Pamidipadu village, the number of patients will be increased because the surrounding nine villages have better transport facilities to Pamidipadu village rather than Prasangulapadu village. Moreover, the building of Prasangulapadu village is in dilapidated condition. It is further stated that, as the PHC in Pamidipadu village is very near to the local villages, the 1 st respondent issued impugned memo dated 02.09.2016 duly permitting to shift the PHC from Prasangulapadu to Pamidipadu, Prakasam district. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared virtually through video conferencing and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, for the respondents. 6. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared virtually through video conferencing and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, there is no justification on the part of the government to take such a decision depriving the villagers in and around Prasangulapadu village. He further submits that everyday 40 to 60 patients are visiting the PHC at Prasangulapadu. The villagers are feeling very healthy and confident about their health issues. He further submits that the Government has not given any indication nor called for any objections nor given any notices nor made any enquiries in taking the decision to shift the PHC from Prasangulapadu Village to Pamidipadu Village. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the transport facilities are very much available to Pamidipadu from the Head Quarters for carrying of Vaccine’s and Medical Equipment, etc.. He further submits that the PHC at Pamidipadu village is very near to Ravinuthala village and Rachapudi village, when compared to Prasangulapadu village. He further submits that there is one primary health centre by name Pothavaram, Prakasam district is adjacent to south side of Prasangulapadu village, whereas the Pamidipadu village is towards north side of Prasangulapadu. The people of Prasangulapdu village will have option either to go to PHC, Pamidipadu or PHC, Pothavaram, which are within 5 kilometres distance. Hence, looking from all the aspects, the 1 st respondent has issued Memo No.206860/H2/2016, Health Medical and Family Welfare (H2) Department, dated 02.09.2016 duly permitting to shift the PHC from Prasangulapadu to Pamidipadu, Prakasam district after detailed examination. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Perused the record. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the Government of Andhra Pradesh established Primary Health Centre in Prasangulapadu village in the year 1994. The Government also sanctioned amounts for development of Primary Health Centres in the year 2014, but the said sanctioned amount was not released by the finance department. 8. Perused the record. 9. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the Government of Andhra Pradesh established Primary Health Centre in Prasangulapadu village in the year 1994. The Government also sanctioned amounts for development of Primary Health Centres in the year 2014, but the said sanctioned amount was not released by the finance department. The Government with a view to give better medical facilities to the people, came to a decision to establish PHC at Pamidipadu village, as the same was very near to the adjacent villages than Prasangulapadu village. 10. Admittedly, the Primary Health care refers to the essential health care made accessible to individuals in a community at costs that they can afford. The World Health Organization (WHO) put forward the concept of primary health care that focuses more on the importance of community participation by identifying some of the social, economic and environmental determinants. It includes the basic services required for meeting one’s everyday health care needs like conducting a regular checkup with the family doctor or visiting low income health clinics. 11. The main role of primary health is to provide continuous and comprehensive care to the patients. It also helps in making the patient available with the various social welfare and public health services initiated by the concerned governing bodies and other organizations. The other major role of a primary health care centre is to offer quality health and social services to the underprivileged sections of the society. All primary health care clinics contain a dedicated team of health care professionals offering the best medical services. They provide a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of health care ensures that the beneficiaries receive the best care from the right health provider. 12. This Court further observed that, the Constitution of India does not expressly recognize Right to Health as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights). However, through judicial interpretation, this has been read into the fundamental right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) and is now considered as inseparable part of the Right to Life. 13. This Court further observed that, the Constitution of India does not expressly recognize Right to Health as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights). However, through judicial interpretation, this has been read into the fundamental right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) and is now considered as inseparable part of the Right to Life. 13. In a case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India , [AIR 1984 SC 812] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the scope of Article 21 was further widened, as the Court held that it is the responsibility of the Government to provide adequate medical aid to every person and to strive for the welfare of the public at large”. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and upon relying upon the above factual aspects, this Court is of the opinion that, the primary health centres are essential for improving people’s lives and fostering the growth of the country. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i. The respondents are directed to develop the Primary Health Centre at Prasangulapadu Village with the amounts sanctioned by the Government in the year 2014. ii. Further, the respondents are directed to construct a new Primary Health Centre at Pamidipadu Village, in pursuant to the Memo vide No.206860/H2/2016, dated 02.09.2016 issued by the 1 st respondent. 15. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.