Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jan Swasthaya Abhiyan Raj &Anr; vs State Of Raj And Ors on 28 February, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writs No. 10025/2016
1. Jan Swasthaya Abhiyan Rajasthan having its office at Flat
202,Plot No. 158 Swage Farm, New Sanganer Road,
Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan) through convener Dr. Narendra
Gupta.
2. Dr. Narendra Gupta S/o Shri Shyam Behari Lal, Aged about 62
years, Convener Jan Swasthaya Abhiyan, Residing at Flat
No.202, Plot No.158 Swage Farm, New Sanganer Road, Sodala,
Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, State of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
3. Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission, Swasthaya
Bhawan Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Director (Public Health), Medical and Health Services,
Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
5. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhindra Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Arya, AAG Mr. C.S. Sinha on behalf of Mr. R.D. Rastogi(Addl. Solicitor General) HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 28/02/2018
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Filed in public interest a short term e-Tender notice dated 28.12.2015 envisaging handing over of Primary Health Centres under PPP mode has been challenged in the writ petition.
(2 of 3) [CW-10025/2016]
3. How the State reaches out its medical services to the citizens is a matter of policy and unless a policy decision is ex facie shown to be arbitrary or irrational, a Court cannot interdict the same.
4. Learned counsel states that e-Tender notice is an attempt by the State to obliterate its duties to provide public health services. Pleading that for running a Public Health Centre `30 to 35 lacs per annum would be spent, earnest money in sum of `3 lacs is questioned as being arbitrary. Relying upon a report concerning public health spending and expenditure at private hospitals it is pointed out that as per the report, a person hospitalised in a public hospital spends `6120/- for the treatment on an average and in the private hospital `25,850/-.
5. Suffice it to state that under the PPP Model a patient has not to pay any money to the service provider. The money is paid by the State Government. Meaning thereby, the patient is hardly affected whether the Primary Health Centre is run by the Government or under a PPP Model.
6. Just to satisfy the judicial conscious of the Court as to how the Private Health Centres were being run, the respondent was directed to provide the relevant information in the form of an affidavit. The same have been provided. The affidavit discloses that since the Primary Health Centres in question came under PPP mode there was an increase in the number of OPD and IPD patients. The 41 Primary Health Centres which were brought under PPP mode show a steep percentage increase in number of patients attended at the centres.
(3 of 3) [CW-10025/2016]
7. Thus, we find no infirmity in the decision taken by the State in the instant case to hand over working of 41 Primary Health Centres under PPP mode.
8. The writ petition is dismissed.
9. No costs.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ KKC/54