IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Emmanneni Chirageevi Rao - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2146 of 2017
Decided on : 24-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 47 - Writ Petition filed seeking to declare the action of shifting a Primary Health Centre from Prasangulapadu to Pamidipadu as illegal and unjustified - The petitioner contended that the villagers have vested interest in the PHC established in 1988, funded partly by their donations - The Government's decision to shift the PHC was based on transport accessibility and the condition of the existing facility - The Court emphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in community welfare. (Paras 1, 2, 9, 12, 14)
(B) Right to Health - The Court recognized that while not explicitly stated as a fundamental right, the Right to Health is encompassed within the Right to Life under Article 21, as interpreted by judicial precedent. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the government's decision to shift a Primary Health Centre from Prasangulapadu to Pamidipadu, arguing that the villagers had a vested interest in the PHC established with their contributions. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The Court directed the development of the PHC at Prasangulapadu with the sanctioned funds and allowed the construction of a new PHC at Pamidipadu. (Paras 14)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the government's decision to shift the PHC and the villagers' vested interest in the existing facility. (Paras 1, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that primary health centres are essential for community welfare and that the Right to Health is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
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 1st 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 3rd 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. 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 1st respondent.
4. The 3rd 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 establi
The Right to Health is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of primary health care in community welfare.
The State's obligation to provide health facilities under the Directive Principles is not legally enforceable, and decisions regarding location of health centres are at its discretion.
Public Interest Litigation concerning property donation and administrative responsibility for healthcare infrastructure.
Petitioner's apprehension against commercial construction on health land redressed by respondents' assurance of reconstruction; writ closed.
The court established that only parties with a legitimate interest in the matter can challenge government actions, emphasizing the importance of locus standi in legal proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.