The Patna High Court has opined that construction of a building and the establishment of a Health Centre are all within the policy decision of the Government. The Government through the appropriate Department is the best judge to decide on the location in which a Health Centre is to be established or shifted.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy dismissed a Petition filed by the who belongs to Village Belsara, is concerned with the Health Centre for primary treatment and its shifting to a different locality.
The petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 28.02.2023 issued by the 3nd respondent (the Joint Secretary, (BMSICL, Health Department) Bihar Medical Service Infrastructure Construction Ltd.) allowing the building of the Health and Wellness Centre to be constructed at Anandpura under Block-Deo in District- Aurangabad in place of Belsara Village. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 24.02.2023 issued by the 4th respondent (I.A.S. Managing Director, Director, BMSICL) sanctioning the construction and also prays for a direction to the respondent nos.4 and 6 (The Collector-cum- Chairman, District Health Samitee, Aurangabad) to stop the construction of the building. The insistence of the petitioner is that the Health and Wellness Centre should be constructed at Belsara-Village itself. The learned counsel also submits that the existing Centre is now being shifted, causing undue hardship to the residents of the locality.
The Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that the Health Centre was being run in a rented building and now it is intended to be shifted to a newly constructed building on Government land; that too only 900 meters away.
“The shifting may cause hardship to the persons of the immediate vicinity in which, earlier, the Health Centre was located. But none can insist that the Health Centre should be at their door steps itself. A Health Centre established in a Village would be used by many persons, coming from near and far”, the Bench observed.
The Court also takes note of the submission of the Government Advocate that the shifting is only to a location 900 metres away from the present location.