THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 27-06-2011 WRIT PETITION No. 4702 OF 2009 Between: Sri O.M. Debara ... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 4702 OF 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) This public interest litigation questions G.O.Ms.No. 1337, dated 20-11-2008 alienating an area of Acs.43.04 guntas in favour of Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) – respondent 4 against payment of a nominal cost of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, subject to the conditions stipulated in Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Land Revenue Rules, 1975 (for short ‘the Rules’). The challenge is sought to be founded mainly on the ground that the land is being parted with by the Government against a nominal price to promote commercial activity of the respondent 4 and not for the public purpose. Refuting the contention, the State has come up with its response through counter, stating therein that the PHFI was launched by the Prime Minister of India on 28-03-2006 inter alia to strengthen the training, research, policy development, training of public health professions and the functionaries positioned in the health services and the purpose being to assist in policy development and programme evaluation related to the health scheme, the Government of Andhra Pradesh also opted to be the beneficiary of the scheme. Reliance is placed on the record to show that the Prime Minister had agreed for establishment of the Institute of Public Health at Hyderabad in consequence to the request of the then Chief Minister. The communication forming part of the paper book reveals that the Government of India is funding the organization and the organization is governed by an autonomous board headed by the (Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission) Government of India with power of over all governance of all the institutes established or those may be established across the country. That appears to be the background of the letter dated 27-10-2006 addressed by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi to the Principal Secretary, Medial and Health, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad which states thus: “…(Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), a unique public private partnership, which has been set up with support from the Government of India, to provide a sustainable response to the severe shortfall of public health professionals in India…………….The Cabinet Committee for Economic Affairs (CCEA) has also created a grant-in- aid of Rs.65 crores for the PHFI (Rf.Encl. 1) in its meeting on July 06, 2006. The grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, for $ 15 million, has also been approved under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976………………………….initiative is one of national importance. The institutes set up by the PHFI will be prestigious centers for public health education. In addition to the training and education services, these will also spearhead research in the area of public health………………………………………….personal guidance to the PHFI will also be very important for the PHFI is a ‘Non Profit’ organization set up with active financial and administrative involvement of Government of India for serving a public purpose. It shall continue to be a public body with the Government participating in its Governing Body. Union Health Minister is its Chief Patron. You may kindly therefore consider allotment of state land to the Foundation free of cost.” 2. The facts so narrated in the above reproduced letter make it clear that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has alienated the land against a nominal value in the interests of public health and ex facie for a public purpose. 3. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government has totally surrendered its ownership and does not have any control over PHFI is refuted by the learned Advocate General on the strength of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 07-04- 2009, the Government and the PHFI have arrived at, which provides among other things inclusion of the representatives of the State Government in the governance structure of the Indian Institute of Public Health (IIPH) and association of the Government with both establishment and management of IIPH. Apart from that, the very first article of MOU makes the functioning of MOU subservient to the laws, rules, regulations, procedures and national/state policies those may be made from time to time by the Government, a power which the Government can exercise any time in case public interest demands so, even if it goes to the basic order of alienation of land. 4. The MOU referred to above further provides that the PHFI will support the State Government in establishment of a robust and dynamic public health system in the State of Andhra Pradesh, development of public health training programmes, conducting research in the domain of public health and will assist in creating and strengthening the capacity of the public health system of the State of Andhra Pradesh in an advisory capacity. The MOU provides further that in association with the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the PHFI will establish a society registered under the Societies Registration Act to manage the IIPH. The governance structure of IIPH will include representatives of the State Government, PHFI and other stakeholders. It further provides that the Government of Andhra Pradesh will be associated with the establishment and in the management of IIPH. These terms and conditions of the MOU therefore make it manifest that it (MOU) is subject to state policies likely to come into being from time to time and the Government of Andhra Pradesh is the ultimate authority to take appropriate actions in public interest. In our view, such absolute power being reserved with the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner’s apprehension that the PHFI could commercially exploit the property allotted to it is clearly unfounded. More so, nothing prevents the State to take appropriate action if and when called for. 5. The counter affidavit of respondent 4 stated that number of states have expressed their interest and they invited PHFI to set up institutes of public health in their states. PHFI has already executed MOUs with the states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Delhi, Meghalaya and Punjab and the State Governments of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand have also invited PHFI to set up institutes in the states. It is therefore manifest from the above that the petitioner’s allegation that alienation is being made to a private organization for commercial purpose is clearly incorrect. That apart, the definition of public purpose under Rule 2 (i) read with general principles under Rule 3 are clearly satisfied in the present case apart form the fact that the conditions under Rule 6 of the Rules are already stipulated in the order of allotment of land. 6. In Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain[1], the Supreme Court held that the intention behind governmental action must be shown to be supported with the object to further the public welfare and national interest. Public good is synonymous with protection of the interests of the citizens as a territorial unit or nation as a whole. It also aims to further public policies. Analysing as such, we are satisfied that the allotment of land in question in favour of PHFI is shown to be in public interest and for public good. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of the Supreme Court in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P[2] for the proposition that state actions for allotment of land must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy which should be made known to public by publication in official gazette and other recognized modes of publicity to ensure non-discrimination and non-arbitrariness in implementation and execution. As we have noticed above, the alienation in the present case is in terms of the statutory rules referred to above framed under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, the ratio of the above decision is not attracted. 8. Being satisfied that alienation in question is in public interest, therefore exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not called for. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 27-06-2011 K. Shyleshi Note: LR Copy to be marked [1] (1997) 1 SCC 35 [2] (2011) 5 SCC 29