Dr Ashok Sinha vs The State Of Tripura

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 5708 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 21662 of 2017)

Dr Ashok Sinha .... Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Tripura & Ors. ....Respondent(s)

ORDER

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Leave granted.

In an earlier public interest litigation initiated by the appellant, a

Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura, by its judgment dated 30 April

2015, directed the State government to take an administrative decision

within a period of three months with respect to the Tripura Medical College

and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital. 1 The High Court

directed the State government to either reconstitute the managing

committee of the Tripura Medical College to ensure that the actual

administrative control lies in the hands of the Society and not the

government, or alternatively, retain control “with all consequences”.

The State, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court, reconstituted

Signature Not Verified the Society for the Tripura Medical College. The Society has its own Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date: 2019.07.24 17:00:29 IST Reason: recruitment rules and has formulated a pay structure.

1 “Tripura Medical College” 2

A fresh writ petition was filed before the High Court in public interest

by the same petitioner who had moved the earlier proceedings. The

grievance of the petitioner was that despite the earlier directions nothing

had changed. In consequence, he sought to challenge the admission

procedure and the fees charged from the students, contending that these

should be at par with other government medical colleges in the North East.

The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on

24 June 2016, which has given rise to the present appeal.

In response to the proceedings, a counter affidavit has been filed on

behalf of the second and the fifth respondents, namely, the Society and the

Principal of the Tripura Medical College. The affidavit records that

pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the constitution of the Society

was recast. Though there are government nominees, it has been stated

that the affairs of the Society are also run by non-governmental nominees

and the representation of the government is to ensure 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 State government

are not necessarily government undertakings;

(ii) The objective of the State government is to ensure transparent

management of the medical colleges with a view to provide medical

education and medical facilities to the people of Tripura;

(iii) The colleges are run on a self-sustaining model and depend on the

revenue generated from tuition fees and the fees collected against

medical services; and 3

(iv) The government has taken a policy decision not to transform the

Tripura Medical College into a State-run medical college. Finances

released by the government from time to time have been treated as

an interest free loan which will be re-paid over a period of fifteen

years.

Initially, the affairs of the Tripura Medical College were being looked

after by an NGO called “Global Educational Net” pursuant to an agreement

dated 7 October 2004. Tripura Medical College secured permission from

the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to admit its first batch of

100 students in 2006-07. While permission was granted for the second

batch, no permission was granted during 2008-09 due to a deficiency in

infrastructure. In April 2009, the NGO which was entrusted with the

running of the Tripura Medical College expressed its inability to do so. In

order to safeguard the interest of the 200 students who were pursuing their

education, the State government constituted a society chaired by the

Principal Secretary in the Health and Family Welfare Department on 22

May 2009.

The first writ petition was instituted in the form of a PIL by the

appellant which resulted in the order of the High Court dated 30 April 2015.

It needs to be emphasized that the High Court did not issue a mandamus

to the State government to run the Tripura Medical College as a

government institution. Such a direction was correctly not issued by the

High Court as it pertains to the realm of policy. Whether the State

government should run the College as a department of the government

depends upon numerous circumstances, including the availability of 4

resources and the expertise to run a medical college in the State. In fact,

the High Court observed that if the State government were not to

administer the Tripura Medical College as an adjunct of the State, it should

constitute an independent society. The State government acting pursuant

to those directions has constituted a society with its own Memorandum and

Bye-laws. The Society has formulated recruitment rules and conducts the

affairs of the Tripura Medical College. The Society has its own governing

body. Of the eleven members of the Society, the Secretaries in the

Department of Finance, Health and Family Welfare, Law and the Directors

of Medical Education and Medical Services are officers of the State.

However, the members of the newly constituted Society also include six

other representatives who are not employees of the State.

In our view, it is a matter of policy for the State government to

determine the manner in which it should retain administrative oversight so

as to ensure that its interest in the proper functioning of the Tripura Medical

College is duly observed. Essentially, the appellant raised an issue of

policy and it would not have been appropriate or proper for the High Court

in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution either

to direct the State government to take over running of the Medical College

as a government college or, for that matter, to hand it over entirely to the

private sector. If the government has chosen a hybrid model in which a

society has been constituted for the purpose of running the Tripura Medical

College while, at the same time, allowing the government some voice

in important policy decisions, this is not an 5

arrangement which can be questioned in the exercise of judicial review.

The grievance that has been urged on behalf of the appellant by Mrs

Rachana Joshi Issar, learned counsel, in regard to the fees which are

charged from the students can, if any student were to make a grievance

before the regulatory committee which has been constituted in the State,

be considered by the committee. Bereft of underlying material, it would not

be possible for this Court to arrive at an a priori view on the

reasonableness of the fees which are charged from the students.

For the above reasons, having considered the impugned judgment,

the earlier judgement of the High Court and the grievance of the appellant,

we are of the view that it would not be appropriate for this Court to embark

upon determining the correctness of a policy decision which has been

taken by the State government.

For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which is

dismissed. No costs.

…………...…...….......………………........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Indira Banerjee]

New Delhi;

July 19, 2019