Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shera Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 10 January, 2020
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 9) [CW-1499/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1499/2018
1. Shera Ram S/o Kumbha Ram, B/c Jat R/o 61, Janduo Ki
Dhani, Udasar, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer. Raj.
2. Radheshyam S/o Gordhan Singh, B/c Jat, R/o Maiyo Ki
Dhani, Dudapur, Udasar, Dhorimanna, Barmer,
Dhorimana, Rajasthan.
3. Harakha Ram S/o Gorakha Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Koshle Ki
Dhani, Udasar, Barmer, Gudhamalani, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Chief Secretary Of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariate, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health,
Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission,
Swasthya Bhawan Jaipur Rajasthan
4. Director Public Health, Medical And Health Services,
Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Rajasthan.
5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Barmer.
6. Block Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dhorimanana,
District Barmer.
7. Chairman, Navjaevan Seva Sansthan, Jalore.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 779/2018
Sukhdev And Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1294/2018
Sona Ram And Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2020 at 08:52:23 PM)
(2 of 9) [CW-1499/2018]
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1318/2018
Narayan And Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1363/2018
Ramesh Chandra Joshi And Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1542/2018
Ganesh Ram And Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1615/2018
Karan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2561/2018
Ramswaroop And Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5845/2018
Om Prakash Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16449/2018
Amrit Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 13/01/2020 at 08:52:23 PM)
(3 of 9) [CW-1499/2018]
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12049/2019
Shiv Charan Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13210/2019
Moti Lal Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Vipul Dharnia
Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat, Amicus
Curiae
Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav
Mr. Vijay Vishnoi on behalf of
Mr. Mahaveer Vishnoi
Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh,
Mr. Jagdish Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with
Mr. Rishi Soni, Mr. Deepak Chandak
Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG with
Mr. Rajat Arora
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment Reserved on 07/01/2020 Pronounced on 10/01/2020 By the Court (Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.):
1. All these petitions, in the form of public interest litigation, are regarding Public Private Partnership (PPP) Mode (Downloaded on 13/01/2020 at 08:52:23 PM) (4 of 9) [CW-1499/2018] which is being implemented by the State of Rajasthan in 75 Rural areas and 31 Urban Areas, in a phased manner.
2. The reliefs claimed in these petitions, in sum and substance, are as follows:-
"A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 14.12.2017, 18.01.2018 (Anx.1), short term E-Tender notice dated 11.08.2017 and attached RFP (Anx.4) handing over the PHCs to private parties may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, action of the State Govt. to hand over the PHCs to private players be declared null and void.
C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
D. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently submitted that the adoption of the PPP Model has been detrimental to the local population, as inadequacy of infrastructure, inadequate manpower deployment and inadequate facilities granted have hit the medical facilities.
4. This Court, while going into the matter, had passed extensive order on 01.08.2019 for the respondents to check the necessary parameters for functioning of the PPP Mode, so as to ensure that the local population does not suffer the inadequacy of the medical facilities.
The said order dated 01.08.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court reads as under:
"All these petitions highlighted glaring inadequacies in the scheme of Public Private Partnership (PPP), in the public health sector whereby the State of Rajasthan has handed over the management and day to day running of 34 Primary (Downloaded on 13/01/2020 at 08:52:23 PM) (5 of 9) [CW-1499/2018] Health Centers (PHCs) in different districts i.e. Sri Ganganagar, Nagaur, Barmer, Banswara, Sirohi etc. The petitioners rely upon monthly progress charts that reflect various parameters; the quality of service rendered by such centers (which are not under the control of the Government but are run through the PPP Model) and submit that all such centers show gross inadequacy both in regard to manpower deployment, facilities granted and infrastructural inadequacy.
The State of Rajasthan in its additional affidavit, filed during the course of the day, has submitted that the issue was considered and for the moment, the Government is of the opinion that the PHCs, which have been handed over under the PPP Model, would be closely monitored. It is stated that by an Order dated 26.07.2019, the Monitoring Mechanism would be Block Level and that the concerned committee would consist of officials such as Director / Joint Director, Zone; CMHO; BCMHO and Assistant Accounts Officer.
This Court is of the opinion that besides, the team can be suitably modified. Instead of both BCMHO & CMHO, one such official can be part of the team. In addition, it would be appropriate that at least two independent members should be made a part of the team - Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority or his nominee, not below the rank of a Senior Civil Judge or equivalent; and an experienced doctor preferably with some experience of having discharged the administrative responsibility in the health sector (Private Hospital or Government Hospital, as the case may be). These should be included in the team.
Having regard to the fact that the PHCs concerned are only limited in number (34), the Committee shall be constituted within a week from (Downloaded on 13/01/2020 at 08:52:23 PM) (6 of 9) [CW-1499/2018] today. The report of these Committees shall be based upon actual inspection of each PHC and their evaluation based upon the parameters publicly notified (average number of OPD patients per day; number of medicines available under MNDY at DDC; number of tests available under MNJY including the number of tests done; number of 4 ANC; number of deliveries conducted at PHC per month; disbursement of benefit under JSY; disbursement of benefits under RSY; number of children fully immunized for sector; IUD insertion at PHC, new cases of hypertension diagnosis; new cases of diabetes diagnosis. Each of these parameters shall be based upon the monthly data available, which shall be verified on a random basis. Apart from that, the level of hygiene maintained and the number of personnel deployed including medical, nursing & paramedical staff). The general cleanliness of toilets; availability of clean drinking water and existence of qualified staff etc. shall also be noted.
All the reports shall be compiled with and presented to the Court on the next date of hearing.
List the matter on 06.09.2019.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16449/2018 We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the opinion that the team deployed to visit the PHC at Banswara should also visit the CHC at Dhariyawad (District Pratapgarh) and evaluate it on an overall basis keeping in mind the same parameters."
5. In compliance of the aforementioned order, a team was constituted by the respondents, which consisted of Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Chief Medical & Health Officer, Assistant Accounts Officer and Medical Officer Incharge, and the report of the said team is before this Court, which suggests that out of 75 PHCs under PPP Mode (Rural), District Alwar (PHC (Downloaded on 13/01/2020 at 08:52:23 PM) (7 of 9) [CW-1499/2018] Bhanokhar, Damroli, Dabaravas, Nangli Balaheer), District Banswara (PHC Ramgarh, Timidi Bada, Panchwara), District Baran (PHC Badora), District Bharatpur (PHC Kapurmaluka, Andhwari), District Bhilwara (PHC Chtamba), District Dausa (PHC Sonad), District Jaisalmer (PHC Bharewala, Madasar), District Jalore (PHC Bhavrani, Ghana), District Pali (PHC Bhumbaliya, Kurkee, Kot Kirana), District Pratapgarh (PHC Achnera, Rampuriya), District Rajsamand (PHC Sameecha), District Sawai Madhopur (PHC Sukar, Gurjar Bardod, Lahsoda, Rawajna Chour), District Sirohi (PHC Manadar, Varada) and District Udaipur (PHC Loonada, Sagatra), are 'Unsatisfactory'; District Bhilwara (PHC Barudani, Kot, Luharikaran), District Bikaner (PHC Kudsu), District Bundi (PHC Jajawer, Dugari), District Churu (PHC Lala Sarbanirotan, Khandwa Patta), District Dholpur (PHC Gopalpura, Samona, Nagla Beedhora), District Dungarpur (PHC Richha), District Jaipur-1 (PHC Mandota, Rampura), District Jhalawar (PHC Chachhlab, Kanwara), District Jhunjhunu (PHC Keru, Nuniya Gothara, Bagola, Bajala, Luna, Sotwara, Baloda, Dhanuri, Padampura), District Kota (PHC Lakasaneeja, Kutradeep Singh, Barod), District Pratapgarh (PHC Ambirama), District Rajsamand (PHC Gajpur, Odda), District Sawai Madhopur (PHC Bhadoti) and District Udaipur (PHC Chansada, Savina, Kun, Malvakachora, Mandwa), are 'Satisfactory'.
The aforesaid report further suggests that out of 31 PHCs under PPP Mode (Urban), District Alwar (PHC Pahadganj), District Karauli (PHC Parshuram Colony Hindaun City, Shaganj Hindaun City) and District Jaipur-1 (PHC Shree Rampuri Niwaru Road, Gokulpura Kalwar Road), are 'Unsatisfactory'; District Bikaner (PHC Sarvodya Basti), District Churu (PHC Harjan Basti, Subedar Ji Ki Tanki), (Downloaded on 13/01/2020 at 08:52:23 PM) (8 of 9) [CW-1499/2018] District Dholpur (PHC Odla, Sagarpada, Badi), District Ganganagar (PHC Ashok Nagar), District Karauli (PHC Near Stadium), District Jaipur-1 (PHC Ambabadi Ward No.10, Nirwan Nagar Ward No.19, Ninad Ward No.1, Bairwa Basti Ward No.78), District Jaipur-2 (PHC Goverdhan Nagar, Patrakar Colony, Mangalvihar Ward No.42, Raghuvihar Ward No.44), District Jodhpur (PHC Rajeev Gandhi Kacchi Basti, Chandna Bhakar, District Nagaur (PHC Makrana (Nagaur), Deedwana (Nagaur) and District Tonk (PHC Housing Board (Tonk) are 'Satisfactory'.
Thus, as per the aforementioned report, out of 75 PHCs under PPP Mode (Rural), 31 PHCs are 'Unsatisfactory', whereas 37 PHCs are 'Satisfactory'; out of 31 PHCs under PPP Mode (Urban), 05 PHCs are 'Unsatisfactory', whereas 21 PHCs are 'Satisfactory'.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General at the threshold submitted that all the PPP Mode experiments, wherever there is an unsatisfactory report, shall be discontinued with immediate effect.
7. On such assurance given by the learned Additional Advocate General, the present petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
(a) The State shall continue to monitor through the team constituted in compliance of the aforementioned order dated 01.08.2019, in a three monthly manner, so as to ascertain whether the performance of the PPP Mode of the concerned PHC is properly being done or not.
(b) Before giving any new PHC on PPP Mode, the private partners' ability to provide necessary infrastructure shall be verified, and he shall be made to sign a bond, so as to ensure that if any inadequacy is there due to his underperformance, then he shall be liable to pay compensation.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2020 at 08:52:23 PM)
(9 of 9) [CW-1499/2018]
(c) The Committee, so constituted, shall continue to monitor the performance of the PHCs and a first compliance report shall be filed by the said Committee within three months from today.
8. This Court, at this juncture, is not entering into merits of the policy of Public Private Partnership to run PHCs however the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case there is any gross failure of the medical facilities in the concerned areas.
9. List again after three months only for compliance report.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ 120-SKant/-
(Downloaded on 13/01/2020 at 08:52:23 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)