DR. ASHOK SINHA versus THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. on 19 July 2019

1. Leave granted.

2. In an earlier public interest litigation initiated by the appellant, aDivision Bench of the High Court of Tripura, by its judgment dated 30April 2015, directed the State government to take an administrativedecision within a period of three months with respect to the TripuraMedical College and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital.[1]The High Court directed the State government to either reconstitute themanaging committee of the Tripura Medical College to ensure that theactual administrative control lies in the hands of the Society and not thegovernment, or alternatively, retain control “with all consequences”.

DE

3. The State, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court,reconstituted the Society for the Tripura Medical College. The Societyhas its own recruitment rules and has formulated a pay structure.

F

4. A fresh writ petition was filed before the High Court in publicinterest by the same petitioner who had moved the earlier proceedings.The grievance of the petitioner was that despite the earlier directionsnothing had changed. In consequence, he sought to challenge theadmission procedure and the fees charged from the students, contendingGthat these should be at par with other government medical colleges inthe North East. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench ofthe High Court on 24 June 2016, which has given rise to the presentappeal.

1“Tripura Medical College”

H

1“Tripura Medical College”

H

A5. In response to the proceedings, a counter affidavit has beenfiled on behalf of the second and the fifth respondents, namely, the Societyand the Principal of the Tripura Medical College. The affidavit recordsthat pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the constitution of theSociety was recast. Though there are government nominees, it hasbeen stated that the affairs of the Society are also run by non-Bgovernmental nominees and the representation of the government is toensure that the finances which are made available are duly channelized.Moreover, it has been submitted that:

(i) Societies formed or promoted by the Central or the Stategovernment are not necessarily government undertakings;C(ii) The objective of the State government is to ensure transparentmanagement of the medical colleges with a view to providemedical education and medical facilities to the people of Tripura;

(iii) The colleges are run on a self-sustaining model and depend onDthe revenue generated from tuition fees and the fees collectedagainst medical services; and

(iv) The government has taken a policy decision not to transform theTripura Medical College into a State-run medical college.Finances released by the government from time to time haveEbeen treated as an interest free loan which will be re-paid over aperiod of fifteen years.

6. Initially, the affairs of the Tripura Medical College were beinglooked after by an NGO called “Global Educational Net” pursuant to anagreement dated 7 October 2004. Tripura Medical College securedFpermission from the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare toadmit its first batch of 100 students in 2006-07. While permission wasgranted for the second batch, no permission was granted during 2008-09due to a deficiency in infrastructure. In April 2009, the NGO which wasentrusted with the running of the Tripura Medical College expressed itsinability to do so. In order to safeguard the interest of the 200 studentsGwho were pursuing their education, the State government constituted asociety chaired by the Principal Secretary in the Health and FamilyWelfare Department on 22 May 2009.

7. The first writ petition was instituted in the form of a PIL by theappellant which resulted in the order of the High Court dated 30 AprilH

2015. It needs to be emphasized that the High Court did not issue amandamus to the State government to run the Tripura Medical Collegeas a government institution. Such a direction was correctly not issuedby the High Court as it pertains to the realm of policy. Whether theState government should run the College as a department of thegovernment depends upon numerous circumstances, including theavailability of resources and the expertise to run a medical college in theState. In fact, the High Court observed that if the State governmentwere not to administer the Tripura Medical College as an adjunct of theState, it should constitute an independent society. The State governmentacting pursuant to those directions has constituted a society with its ownMemorandum and Bye-laws. The Society has formulated recruitmentrules and conducts the affairs of the Tripura Medical College. TheSociety has its own governing body. Of the eleven members of theSociety, the Secretaries in the Department of Finance, Health and FamilyWelfare, Law and the Directors of Medical Education and MedicalServices are officers of the State. However, the members of the newlyconstituted Society also include six other representatives who are notemployees of the State.

8. In our view, it is a matter of policy for the State government todetermine the manner in which it should retain administrative oversightso as to ensure that its interest in the proper functioning of the TripuraMedical College is duly observed. Essentially, the appellant raised anissue of policy and it would not have been appropriate or proper for theHigh Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution either to direct the State government to take over runningof the Medical College as a government college or, for that matter, tohand it over entirely to the private sector. If the government has chosena hybrid model in which a society has been constituted for the purposeof running the Tripura Medical College while, at the same time, allowingthe government some voice in important policy decisions, this isnot an arrangement which can be questioned in the exercise of judicialreview.

9. The grievance that has been urged on behalf of the appellantby Mrs Rachana Joshi Issar, learned counsel, in regard to the feeswhich are charged from the students can, if any student were to makea grievance before the regulatory committee which has been constitutedin the State, be considered by the committee. Bereft of underlying A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amaterial, it would not be possible for this Court to arrive at an a prioriview on the reasonableness of the fees which are charged from thestudents.

10. For the above reasons, having considered the impugnedjudgment, the earlier judgement of the High Court and the grievance ofBthe appellant, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate for thisCourt to embark upon determining the correctness of a policy decisionwhich has been taken by the State government.

11. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which isdismissed. No costs.

C

Nidhi Jain

Appeal dismissed.

D

E

F

G

H