DR. ASHOK SINHA versus THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.
[2019] 9 S.C.R. 1066, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1066
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
DR. ASHOK SINHA
v.
THE STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5708 of 2019)
JULY 19, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Administrative Law: Policy decision – Judicial review –
Medical college – Pursuant to the direction by the High Court,
reconstitution of Society for the Tripura Medical College by the
State Government –  Society having its own recruitment rules and a
pay structure – Writ petition by the appellant challenging the
admission procedure and fees charged from the students contending
that these to be at par with other government medical colleges –
Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Whether the State
government should run the College as a department of the
government depends upon numerous circumstances, including the
availability of resources and the expertise to run a medical college
in the State – High Court held that if the State government were not
to administer the Tripura Medical College as an adjunct of the State,
it should constitute an independent society – State government acting
pursuant to those directions constituted a society with its own
Memorandum and Bye-laws – It is a matter of policy for the State
government to determine the manner in which it should retain
administrative oversight so as to ensure that its interest in the proper
functioning of the Tripura Medical College is duly observed – If
the government has chosen a hybrid model in which a
society has
been constituted for the purpose of running the Medical College
while, at the same time, allowing the government some voice in
important policy decisions, this is not an arrangement which can
be questioned in the exercise of judicial review – Thus, the
correctness of a policy decision taken by the State government
cannot be determined – Also, the Court cannot arrive at an a priori
view on the reasonableness of the fees.
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1066
            1066
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1067
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal no. 5708 of
2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2016 of the High Court
of Tripura in W.P.(C) (PIL) No. 7 of 2016
Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, Ms. K. Viaijayanthi, Ms. Prerna
Chaturvedi,  Advs. for the Appellant.
Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, Ms. Varsha Poddar, Vikram
Aditya Nath,  Chandan Kumar, Rituraj Biswas, Ms. Sujaya Bardhan,
Rituraj Chaudhary, Satyendra Kumar Srivastav, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In an earlier public interest litigation initiated by the appellant,  a
Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura, by its judgment dated 30
April 2015, directed the State government to take an administrative
decision within a period of three months with respect to the Tripura
Medical College and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital.1
The High Court directed the State government to either reconstitute the
managing committee of the Tripura Medical College to ensure that the
actual administrative control lies in the hands of the Society and not the
government, or alternatively, retain control “with all consequences”.
3. The State, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court,
reconstituted the Society for the Tripura Medical College.  The Society
has its own recruitment rules and has formulated a pay structure.
4.  A fresh writ petition was filed before the High Court in public
interest by the same petitioner
who had moved the earlier proceedings.
The grievance of the petitioner was that despite the earlier directions
nothing had changed.  In consequence, he sought to challenge the
admission procedure and the fees charged from the students, contending
that these should be at par with other government medical colleges in
the North East.  The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of
the High Court on 24 June 2016, which has given rise to the present
appeal.
1“Tripura Medical College”
DR. ASHOK SINHA  v. STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1068
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
5. In response to the proceedings, a counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the second and the fifth respondents, namely, the Society
and the Principal of the Tripura Medical College.  The affidavit records
that pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the constitution of the
Society was recast.  Though there are government nominees, it has
been stated that the affairs of the Society are also run by non-
governmental nominees and the representation of the government is to
ensure that the finances which are made available are duly channelized.
Moreover, it has been submitted that:
(i) Societies formed or promoted by the Central or the State
government are not necessarily government undertakings;
(ii) The objective of the State government is to ensure transparent
management of the medical colleges with a view to provide
medical education and medical facilities to the people of Tripura;
(iii) The colleges are run on a self-sustaining model and depend on
the revenue generated from tuition fees and the fees collected
against medical services; and
(iv) The government has taken a policy decision not to transform the
Tripura Medical College into a State-run medical college.
Finances released by the government from time to time have
been treated as an interest free loan which will be re-paid over a
period of fifteen years.
6. Initially, the affairs of the Tripura Medical College were being
looked after by an NGO
called “Global Educational Net” pursuant to an
agreement dated 7 October 2004.   Tripura Medical College secured
permission from the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to
admit its first batch of 100 students in 2006-07.  While permission was
granted for the second batch, no permission was granted during 2008-09
due to a deficiency in infrastructure.  In April 2009, the NGO which was
entrusted with the running of the Tripura Medical College expressed its
inability to do so.  In order to safeguard the interest of the 200 students
who were pursuing their education, the State government constituted a
society chaired by the Principal Secretary in the Health and Family
Welfare Department on 22 May 2009.
7. The first writ petition was instituted in the form of a PIL by the
appellant which resulted in the order of the High Court dated 30 April
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1069
2015.  It needs to be emphasized that the High Court did not issue a
mandamus to the State government to run the Tripura Medical College
as a government institution.  Such a direction was correctly not issued
by the High Court as it pertains to the realm of policy.  Whether the
State government should run the College as a department of the
government depends upon numerous circumstances, including the
availability of resources and the expertise to run a medical college in the
State.  In fact, the High Court observed that if the State government
were not to administer the Tripura Medical College as an adjunct of the
State, it should constitute an independent society.  The State government
acting pursuant to those directions has constituted a society with its own
Memorandum and Bye-laws.  The Society has formulated recruitment
rules and conducts the affairs of the Tripura Medical College.  The
Society has its own governing body.  Of the eleven members of the
Society, the Secretaries in the Department of Finance, Health and Family
Welfare, Law and the Directors of Medical Education and Medical
Services are officers of the State.  However, the members of the newly
constituted Society also include six other representatives who are not
employees of the State.
8. In our view, it is a matter of policy for the State government to
determine the manner in which it should retain administrative oversight
so as to ensure that its interest in the proper functioning of
the Tripura
Medical College is duly observed.  Essentially, the appellant raised an
issue of policy and it would not have been appropriate or proper for the
High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution either to direct the State government to take over running
of the Medical College as a government college or, for that matter, to
hand it over entirely to the private sector.  If the government has chosen
a hybrid model in which a society has been constituted for the purpose
of running the Tripura Medical College while, at the same time, allowing
the government    some    voice   in   important   policy decisions, this is
not an arrangement which can be questioned in the exercise of judicial
review.
9. The grievance that has been urged on behalf of the appellant
by Mrs  Rachana Joshi Issar, learned counsel, in regard to the fees
which are charged from the students can,  if any student were to make
a grievance before the regulatory committee which has been constituted
in the State, be considered by the committee.  Bereft of underlying
DR. ASHOK SINHA  v. STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS.
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
material, it would not be possible for this Court to arrive at an a priori
view on the reasonableness of the fees which are charged from the
students.
10. For the above reasons, having considered the impugned
judgment, the earlier judgement of the High Court and the grievance of
the appellant, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate for this
Court to embark upon determining the correctness of a policy decision
which has been taken by the State government.
11. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeal which is
dismissed. No costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal dismissed.