Momo Tantanga vs State Of Manipur & Ors

R.S., CJ

[1] Prayers in this PIL are as follows:-

"ii) issue a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby directing the Respondents to complete the unfinished and abandon constructions and development work of Rilram Centre, PHC, Tengnoupal District, and Manipur at the earliest within a fix time frame.

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to call for records with regard to the utilisation and management of funds used in construction and development of Rilram Centre, PHC, Tengnoupal District, Manipur.

iv) Pass order/s to the State respondents to conduct necessary inquiry and investigation for mis-uses of Public funds and also to check the quality and condition of the Construction and Development work w.r.t. Rilram Centre, PHC, Tengnoupal, District, Manipur."

[2] Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the relief of certiorari can be declined because of vagueness in the prayer. Hence, prayer No.iii declined. Prayer No.(ii) and (iii) relates to construction and development of Primary Health centre at Rilram Centre, formerly Chandel, now under the Tengnoupal District. This Primary Health Centre is funded by PIL No.23 of 2019 NABARD for the Hill districts of Manipur right from the year 2011. The construction and development of the PHCs in the hill districts is implemented by the Govt. of Manipur through an agency called Manipur Development Society.

[3] The grievance of the petitioner is that even after lapse of seven years, construction of PHC at Rilram Centre is incomplete and abandon by the concerned contractors. In order to support the plea that the condition of the PHC is very bad, Annexure-A/6 ( Colly) is filed. A perusal of the same makes it clear that some of the work has been done, some is yet to be completed. Petitioner's counsel states that as per Annexure-A/5 document, it is shown that the work has been completed. In view of the discrepancy on record and the actual position of the Primary Health Centre, Rilram Centre, the PIL has been filed stating that action should be taken against the persons concerned with construction of the PHC, Rilram which is incomplete and for enquiry as to how the amount has been mis-utilised in the name of construction.

[4] Petitioner's further grievance is that due to corrupt practice in utilisation of public funds, which is sanctioned for PHC, proper building has not been put up resulting resulting in denial of PHC, Centre at Rilram which will cater to the needs of the 11 tribal villages. They need proper medical care and facilities and there is no private hospital/clinic nearby also, the real victims are mostly women and children who needs proper care and medical treatment during pregnancy including vaccination. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation on 11.3.2019,Annexure-A/7 to the Commissioner/Principal Secretary, Health/Medical Department, Govt. of Manipur, the Director, Health/Medical, Manipur and the Deputy Commissioner, Tengnoupal. The representation dated 11.3.2019 gives the details of the very bad condition of the Primary Health Centre and the allegation of mis-use of funds and the consequential difficulty that has caused to the people of the hill areas surrounding the Rilram Centre area.

[5] Heard Mr. H.Debendra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents who states that if there is any fault/ error in the construction or implementation of the scheme, appropriate action will be taken by the State. It is needless to point out that the State is under obligation to provide basic medical facilities and treatment failing which it will amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and liable to pay compensation to the victim and its family as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity vs. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37 and Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1997 Ori 37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Education and Resource Centre vs. Union of India, AIR (1995) 3 SC 43 and Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Employees' State Insurance Corpn., (1996) 2 SCC 682 held that right to health is a fundamental right. Similar view was re-stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Mohinder Singh Chawala, AIR (1997) 2 SC 83 observing that right to health is integral to right to life. The Government has a constitutional obligation to provide health facilities.

[6] Keeping that in mind, we direct all the three respondents herein to consider the complaint on its own merit and ensure that Primary Health Centres if it is already in the stage of construction, to complete with all proper facilities. They should also keep in mind a wrong statement Annexure-A/5 stating that the work is completed. It is stated that Primary Health Centre is in a very bad condition, as revealed in Annexure-A/6 (colly). He assured that appropriate action should be taken against the concerned contractor who fail to complete the construction in a proper manner. Responsibility should be fixed on the erring officials as to how funds has not been properly utilised. Appropriate inquiry is required to be made by the 1st respondent into the issue without any further delay.

[7] Recording as above, the PIL stands disposed of.