IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13673 of 2008 Between: Dr. Jagadeeshwar Prasad S/o Govardhan, Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital Development Society, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Warangal R/o 5-11-585, Srinagar Colony, anamkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of India rep by its Secretary Medical and Health Department, New Delhi. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh repby its Secretary, Medical and Helath family Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, AYUSH, Ex. Officio Secretary to Government, Health Medical and Family Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Chairman/District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-implement G.O.Ms. No. 874 dt 27-12-2006 HM & FW (D1) and consequently direct the respondents to set-a side the G.O.s. No.99 dt 31-03-2008 issued by 3rd respondent as it is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary to the guidelines issued by nation Rural and health Mission and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.L.PANDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Dr.Jagadeeshwar Prasad with a prayer to issue an order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to re-implement G.O.Ms.No.874 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (D1) Department, dated 27.12.2006, and consequently to set aside G.O.Ms.No.99 Health, Medical &Family Welfare (R2) Department, dated 31.03.2008, issued by the Commissioner, AYUSH, Hyderabad-3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner is a Doctor by profession and he is practicing AYUSH medical science. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.874 Health, Medical &Family Welfare (D1) Department, dated 27.12.2006, containing comprehensive guidelines for constitution and organization of Government Hospitals/Primary Health Centres Development Societies in all Teaching Hospital, District Headquarters Hospitals, Area Hospitals, Community Health Centres and other Government Hospitals and Primary Health Centres in the State. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.99 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (R2) Department, dated 31.03.2008 with regard to re- constitution of Development Societies in AYUSH Institutions. As per the re-constitution of Development Societies in respect of Medical Colleges and teaching hospitals, the composition of Members are: (1) District Collector (of the district where Ayush medical college is located – Chairman. (2) Principal of Ayush Medical College – Convenor. (3) Superintendent of attached Hospital – Member. (4) Regional Deputy Director of the Region in which medical college is located – Member. (5) Municipal Commissioner of the area where medical college is located – Member. (6) Member of Legislative Assembly in whose constituency the college is located – Member. (7) One Ayush Practitioner residing and practicing in the Municipality where college is located (duly registered with concerned Board) to be nominated by Chairman – Member. The writ petitioner calls in question the validity of the G.O.Ms.No.99 MH & FW (R2) Department, dated 31.03.2008, on the ground that it is not in tune with the norms of National Rural and Health Mission. The petitioner claims that the proceedings No.H3/5773/2006, dated 04.04.2008, issued by the District Collector, Warangal, are in tune with the G.O.Ms.No.874 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (D1) Department, dated 27.12.2006, and therefore, the Committee constituted therein shall be allowed to function notwithstanding the G.O.Ms.No.99 MH & FW (R2) Department, dated 31.03.2008. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 27.06.2008. 4. The respondents entered appearance and ﬁled counter- aﬃdavit. Dr.K.V.S. Prabhalaram, Additional Director (Ayurveda), Department of AYUSH, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter- aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that G.O.Ms.No.99 MH & FW (R2) Department, dated 31.03.2008, has been issued to bring the management of the Ayush Medical Colleges and the attached hospitals under a single structure in order to ensure coordination among two entities and also to have integrated management thereby ensuring eﬀective teaching as well as delivery of services, by the college as well as the hospital. The relevant portion of the counter-affidavit needs to be noted and it reads as hereunder: “In reply to Para.3 it is submitted that, the Dist. Collector, Warangal District, has constituted the Hospital Development Society as per the structure composed in the G.O.Ms.No.874, dt.27.12.06 and when the Principal, AL Govt. Ayurvedic College, Warangal, brought to the notice of the Collector that Govt. Ayur. Hospital is an attached Hospital declared vide G.O.Ms.No.48, HM&FW (R2) Dept., dt.14.02.2008 and requested to reconstitute the Development Society by following the guidelines as issued for new integrated Medical College & attached Hospital Development Society. However, the Dist. Collector, Warangal Dist., has kept the earlier orders issued constituting the Society in abeyance, due to Bye election and also keeping the request of the Principal, AL Government Ayurvedic College, Warangal in consideration. Hence, the then existing Hospital Development Society is at present kept in abeyance. The fresh Society is yet to be reconstituted by the Collector, as per the composition described in G.O.Ms.No.99, dt.31.03.2008. In reply to Paras.4&5, it is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.99, MH&FW (R2) Dept., dt.31.03.2008, has been issued to bring the management of the Ayush Medical Colleges and the attached Hospitals under a single structure in order to ensure coordination among two entities and also to have integrated management thereby ensuring eﬀective teaching as well as delivery of services, by the college as well as the hospital. Further, there are no deviations to the guidelines of G.O.Ms.No.874, HM&FW (D1) Dept., Dt.27.12.06, as they however, remain same in the G.O.Ms.No.99, HM&FW (R2) Deptt., dt.31.03.08. Hence, it is not a fact that the G.O.Ms.No.99, HM&FW (R2), Dt.31.3.08, is contra to the G.O.Ms.No.874, dt.27.12.06. However, certain changes done in the composition of structure such as Member of Parliament is replaced with the Principal of College and another change is inclusion of the Regional Deputy Director, of the region, where college is located and (3) three MLA’s have been reduced to one MLA and three representatives from self help group/social worker/NGO’s/Prominent citizens have been dropped to one and Executive Engineer of A.P. Health Medical Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation, is also dropped from the Development Society and the last change is making the Principal of Ayush College as member/convenor instead of the Superintendent of the Hospital concerned since in the integrated setup the Principal of the Ayush College has major role compared to the Superintendent of the attached hospital. Further, it is submitted that, Ayush Medical College & Hospital fall invariably in one assembly constituency, for which, the Single Development Society for betterment of both the institutions i.e. Medical College & attached Hospital, is much useful, for providing better facilities, both academic and hospital services, that’s why, in order to ensure coordination among two entities and also to have integrated management thereby ensuring eﬀective teaching as well as delivery of services by the college as well as AYUSH Hospital.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that reconstitution of hospital development societies is in violation of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.874 Health, Medical & Family Welfare (D1) Department, dated 27.12.2006 and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.99 MH & FW (R2) Department, dated 31.03.2008, is to be declared as null and void. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare appearing for the respondents submits that G.O.Ms.No.99 MH & FW (R2) Department, dated 31.03.2008, is issued to bring the hospital development and college development under the banner of one society instead of having two independent societies and the reconstitution of the societies being a policy decision, the petitioner cannot question the same. 8. The scope and extent of judicial review of the High Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary from case to case, the nature of order, the relevant statute and also the other relevant factors including the nature of power exercised by the public authorities, quasi judicial or administrative. The power of judicial review is not intended to assume supervisory role or done the robes of omnipresent. The power is intended neither to review the governance under the rule of law nor do the courts step into the areas exclusively reserved by the Supreme less to the other organ of the State. Decisions and actions, which do not have adjudicatory disposition may not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. 9. The scope of judicial review of the policy decisions fell for consideration in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn.[1], wherein it has been held as follows: “ Courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the grounds of mala ﬁde, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it would hurt business interests of a party, does not justify invalidating the policy. In tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial restraint, if not judicial deference, to judgment of the executive. The courts are not expected to express their opinion as to whether at a particular point of time or in a particular situation any such policy should have been adopted or not. It is best left to the discretion of the State.” 10. In Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi[2], the Supreme Court held as under: “ The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from diﬀerent angles. In the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown, the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.” 11. I n All India ITDC Workers’ Union v. ITDC [3], the Supreme Court negatived the challenge to the disinvestment policy of the government and held: “ The Government of India constituted the Disinvestment Commission and accepted the recommendation of the said Commission. A decision was taken by Inter-Ministerial Group and at the level of the Cabinet Committee on Disinvestment to divest each property belonging to ITDC individually rather than altogether or in groups. The decision of the Government of India to divest the property was a policy decision which was not in any manner contrary to the law of the land. The present writ petitions ﬁled by the employees merit to be dismissed since disinvestment was a policy decision of the Government of India. The said policy decision should be least interfered with in judicial review.” 12. The purpose of re-constitution of the hospital development society and college development society is indicated in G.O.Ms.No.99 MH & FW (R2) Department, dated 31.03.2008. Para. 3 of the said GO needs reads as hereunder: “3. In the letter 3rd read above, Commissioner, Department of AYUSH has reported that the present system of development societies in medical colleges and teaching hospitals in AYUSH is not working satisfactorily and there is no coordination between the medical colleges and the attached hospitals. Therefore, there is a need to bring the management of the AYUSH medical college and the attached hospital under a single structure so as to ensure coordination between two entities and also to have integrated management thereby ensuring eﬀective teaching as well as delivery of services by the college as well as the hospital. He has also informed that this issue was also discussed during the review meeting by the Chief Minister of A.P., on re-structuring of HM&FW Department.” It is explicit from the above referred extract of the G.O., that the two societies have been re-structured as single society to ensure coordination between the two entities. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to set aside the G.O.Ms.No.99 MH & FW (R2) Department, dated 31.03.2008. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:29th September, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} [1] (2001) 3 SCC 635 [2] (2006) 10 SCC 337 [3] (2006) 10 SCC 66