Daitari Muduli and Others vs State of Orissa and Others

P.K. Mohanty, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers.

"It is, therefore, prayed that the Writ Application be admitted and upon hearing the parties appropriate Writ/Writs, Order/Orders, Direction/Directions be issued calling upon the Opp. Parties Nos. 1 to 4 to provide Medical Officer, Medical equipments and other medical facilities to the Primary Health Centre at village-Ratanpur and moreover appropriate Writ be issued quashing the impugned decision of the Opp. Party No. 5 as per Annexure-5 and 8."

Sri Mishra, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the grounds on which the P.H.C. is sought to be shifted are flimsy and factually incorrect and such decision to shift the centre is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

Undisputed, the State Government by its Order dated 30.11.1989 decided to establish a new P.H.C. at village Ratanpur of Astarang Block in the district of Puri, subject to fulfillment of the conditions that (a) the local people should provide minimum one acre of land duly pledged in favour of the Panchayat Samiti for the Medical Institution as per G.O. No. 25681/H, dated 23.7.1988; (b) the villagers should provide buildings for the medical institution as well as for the staff in Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid letter it is clearly stipulated that if the above conditions were not fulfilled by the local people within six months from the date of issue of the order, Government allocation for the proposed medical institution will be cancelled and such institution will be allotted to another place in the same Block. The Petitioner No. 1 purportedly gifted Sabik Plot No. 750 (Hal Plot No. 1263) of Khata No. 260 said to be measuring an area of Ac. 1.000 of land as required in the sanction order. The petitioner further claimed that six rooms with asbestos roof were constructed for the purpose. It is, therefore, contended by the Learned Counsel that since the conditions were fulfilled, the State Government could not have taken a decision to cancel the allotment or shift the P.H.C. to another place within the Block.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. It is stated that the District Development Board, Puri in their meeting held on 17.3.1991 recommended for change of the location of the P.H.C. from Ratanpur to Bantilo within the Astarang Block in the district of Puri on the ground that the decision of the Government has been taken sanctioning the P.H.C. without the recommendation of the District Development Board and that the villagers have in fact donated Ac. 0.71 decimals of land even though in the Gift Deed No. 168/90, it is mentioned as Ac. 1.000. Construction of six rooms with Asbestos roof has been made on a piece of Gochar land outside the land mentioned in the gift deed. The construction being on an objectionable encroachment, the Government decided not to have the Centre on such objectionable land. It is further submitted that the villagers have also failed to construct any building for the medical staff, which was a precondition for establishment of the P.H.C.

The petitioners having failed to fulfill the terms and conditions for establishment of the P.H.C. within the stipulated period of six months, the decision of the Government in shifting the P.H.C. is neither illegal nor arbitrary. It appears that in course of hearing for admission, the Learned Addl. Government Advocate was directed to obtain instruction as to if the Government is inclined to re-consider the matter, but the Learned Addl. Government Advocate, on instruction submits that on consideration, the Government is not inclined to take a different view and allow the P.H.C. on the encroached land.

The Order dated 30.11.1989 Annexure-1 clearly indicates that the P.H.C. was decided to be established in village Ratanpur in Astarang Block subject to the conditions as discussed above. Undisputedly, no construction has been made over the land said to have been gifted by the petitioner No. 1 for the purpose and it has been made over a Gochar land, communal in nature. The second condition with regard to providing minimum Ac. 1.000 of land has also not been fulfilled since it was not disputed that the actual area covered under the gift deed was Ac. 0.71 decimals and not Ac. 1.00, as wrongly stated in the gift deed. In addition no staff quarter was constructed in terms of the letter. The petitioners having not complied with conditions stipulated in the letter in Annexure-1 if the State Government has taken a decision to cancel the allotment and shift the P.H.C. to some other place, such decision cannot be faulted.

Before parting with the case, we would like to place on record that the petitioners had not approached the State Government in a clean hand and they wanted to obtain the allotment and establishment of a P.H.C. by deceitful means. It is unfortunate that in spite of it, the Block Development Officer in his letter dated 7.2.1990 (Annexure-3) has not only certified that the construction has been made over the gifted land, but even went to the extent that all other conditions including the construction of staff quarters have been fulfilled. The certificate appears to be contrary to the existing facts and materials on record. In such circumstances, we fail to understand, as to how, even after finding the report and the assertion of the petitioner to be incorrect, the State Government did not like to proceed against the officers responsible for furnishing the wrong information but remained satisfied by taking a decision to change the place of the Public Health Centre. It is noticed that sometimes the responsible officers are giving false/incorrect reports in connivance with the interested persons and even though it comes to the notice of the Government, no action is taken against any such erring officers. In the fitness of things, we would observe that in cases like the present one, if it comes to the notice of the Government, that the officer concerned has not acted bona fide in granting a certificate, or it is either false or factually incorrect, unless some action is taken in accordance with law, such officers and others would be encouraged to do so for obvious reasons. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the Learned Addl. Government Advocate for communication to the appropriate department of the Government to consider, whether the report submitted by the Block Development Officer was based on correct state of things and if not whether any departmental action is warranted. However, the State Government may consider establishment of a Public Health Centre at Ratanpur, if the petitioners file a representation and fulfil the conditions stipulated.

In such view of the matter, we dismiss the Writ Petition with the aforesaid observation.

J.P. Mishra, J.

I agree.