Judgment:
ORDER
1. The bone of contention of the parties is regarding shifting of the Primary Health Centre from Thottigaripalli, hamlet ofChennakesampalli to Venkatasettypalli, Cuddapah District, five years after it was commissioned.
2. Long and tenacious submissions have been made by the contesting parties. Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy has advanced the contention that the shifting of the Primary Health Centre is mala fide, without proper application of mind, and without any cogent material to support the decision and to have been made exclusively at the instance of Dr. V. Siva Rama Krishna Rao, M.L.A., the 4th respondent herein, who belongs to the ruling party and who has engineered the move after influencing the Government.
3. The facts relating to the case, in brief, are as follows:-- A decision was taken by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to establish 194 Primary Health Centres in the State, of which 8 were allotted to Cuddapah district and out of the 8, one was located at village Thottigaripalli, hamlet of Cheenakesampalli (Chennampalli) village in the year (988. After it continued for a period of five years, a letter was adressed by the 4th respondent on 9-4-1993 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister urging that the location of the Primary Heath Centre at Thottigaripalli in Badvel Mandal is at a distance of 3 Kms from Badvel where there is a 30 bedded Government hospital. As a consequence the Doctor and the staff are without any work and the public funds are being swindled away and that on the contrary there are many villages in the Badvel Mandal including Venkatasettipalli village which need medical facilities. He, as such, moved that the Primary Health Centre at Thottigaripalli should be shifted to Venkatasettipalli Village. Certain correspondents ensued and the Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein, in his letter Re. No.9715/P2A/93 dated 19-7-1993 addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, H. M. & F.W. Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, approved the shifting of the Primary Health Centre, but again in his letter in Re. No. 9715/P2A/93 dated 18-8-1993, in continuation of his earlier letter, he qpined against the shifting. Ultimately the matter was placed before theHon'ble Chief Minister who called for the file and ordered that the Primary Health Centre shall be shifted to Venkatasettipalli as requested by the 4th respondent.
4. Though rule nisi was issued, no coun-ter-affidavit has been filed by the State Government, the 1st respondent herein or by respondents 2 and 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondents supporting the decision of transfer of the Primary Health Centre.
5. Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy has urged, with reference to the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 517 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (FI) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 26-10-1993 that the orders Ifo not absolutely disclose any reasons for directing the shifting of the Primary Health Centre except stating in a routine manner that 'the Government have carefully examined the matter and hereby direct the Director of Health, Hyderabad (2nd respondent) to shift the Primary Health Centre from Thottigaripalli (village) to Venkatasettipalli (village) of Badevi (Mandal) Cuddapah District as requested by Dr. V. Sivarama Krishna Rao, M.L.A. Badvel. The Director of Health, Hyderabad'is requested to take further necessary action in the matter'. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the earlier recitals in the impugned order only relate to statements of facts regarding the letter of the 4th respondent and the two opinions of respondents 2 and 3.
6. The location of a Primary Health Centre or its shifting are admittedly administrative functions of the State Government. There is no Us involved with any party. Such an administrative decision of the Government, like and other administrative order, is assailable only if it is passed on extraneous considerations not germane to the issue or is such as cannot be reached by any reasonable process with the materials on record. All such orders are to emanate from justice, equity and good conscience all of which are routed in the concept of fairness. Hence unless the order is assailable on the ground of absence of fair play, it is not available to be interefered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinaryjurisdiction.
7. Sri Reddy placed reliance on adecision of the Supreme Court in B. N. Shankarappa v. Uthanur Srinivas, : (1994)IIILLJ374SC regarding selection of Mandal headquarter wherein it was observed, following the decision in J. R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P., : 1988(38)ELT225(SC) , 'that the ultimate decision as to the place or location of Mandal headquarter is left to the government to decide and conferment of discretion upon the concerned authority in that behalf must necessarily leave the choice to the discretion of the said authority and it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the discretion so exercised. This is not to say that the discretion can be exercised in an arbitrary or whimsical manner without proper application'of mind or for ulterior or mala fide purpose. If it is shown that the discretion was so exercised it would certainly be open to the courts to interfere with the discretiqn but not otherwise.' The law relating to the situation was summed up in the said passage and hence to succeed, the petitioner has to show that the decision has been taken by the Government either arbitrarily or in whimsical manner without proper application of mind or for ulterior or mala fide purpose. So far as the question of mala fide is concerned, Sri Reddy rightly submitted of not pressing any issue of personal mala fides. Though it has been alleged that the 4th respondent influenced the mind of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Health Minister, yet they have not been made parties individually for which such charge is not available to be pressed. Instead it is his submission that the decision of the Govern-- ment shows legal mala fide.
8. The submission could have otherwise force if the Government decision was taken without any material to support. Any executive decision is liable to be struck down if there are no materials to support it. The present case however is different. Here is a case where a move was made by the 4th respondent to shift the Primary Health Centre urging certain grounds for the same. It cannot be said that the 4th respondent as therepresentative of the people has no function to make the move. It was another matter as to how this move was treated and considered by the Government and ultimate decision taken. The file relating to the decision was produced by the Government Pleader for perusal. It shows the matter to have been referred to the 2nd respondent who on two occasions gave two conflicting opinions, once supporting the shifting and again later opposing it. In the first letter, when he supported the move for transfer, he said that the village Thottigari-palli is the hamlet of Chennakesampalli village in Badvel Mandal and it is on record that it is at a distance of 3 kms. from Badvel which is an old Taluk and present Mandal headquarters where there is a Government Hospital. On the other hand, Venkataselti-palli village is at a distance of about 9 kms. from Badvel. The District Medical and Health Officer, Cuddapah had reported that Venkatasettipalli is a Panchayat having 200 houses within a radius of 8.5 kms. and there is no medical institution and there are six villages with Panchayat status. The village is situated on the main road of Cuddapah to Porumamifla via Badvel. Taking such facts into consideration the 2nd respondent opined that the proposal had his approval. In his second letter of 18-8-1993 he however said as under:--
'Although the existing PHC is not far away from Government Hospital, Badvel, there is no need to shift the PHC as preventive health care measures are to be provided by the public health staff and medical officer to all the villages in Badvel Mandal. Medical facilities being provided at Badvel Hospital are curative and clinical Thottigaripalli is an ideal and central place in Badvel Mandal.
As seen from the map of Badvel Mandal, Venkatasettipalli village is at the border of Badvel Mandal.
If the PHC is shifted to Venkatasettipalli it may not be easy for the staff of PHC to cover all the villages in the mandal for rendering effective medicare and primary health care facilities to people.
In the light of the circumstances explained above, I am of the opinion that it is notdesirable to shift the PHC from Thottigaripalli village to Venkatasettipalli village in Badvel Mandal. As such the existing PHC at Thottigaripalli may continue.'
9. It is submitted by Sri M. V. Ramana Reddy that from G.O.Ms. No. 138, Health Medical and Family Welfare (F) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 16-3-1988 annexed at page 6 of the material papers filed by the petitioner, guidelines were spelled out for the location of Primary Health Centres and that in accordance with those, village Thottigaripalli was selected for the purpose and the Government also accorded its sanction to it as stated therein, It is also urged that the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the location of the Primary Health Centre at the village violated guideline No. 1, viz., that the distance of the new primary health centre to other existing medical facility preferably be beyond 5 kms. is not correct and the real distance between Badvel and Thottigaripalli is 5 kms. and not 3 kms. as stated by the 4th respondent. He filed the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 3-11-1993 in support of the submission. It was his contention that since the location of the Primary Health Centre was done in accordance with the guidelines and there was no decision taken, that the guidelines were violated, and that on the other hand no decision was also taken that the guidelines were satisfied so far as Venkatasettipally is concerned, the decision to shift is arbitrary.
10. It has not been submitted and indeed it is without doubt that the Government, as the executive authority has the power to direct shifting of the Primary Health Centre. Article 162 of the Constitution of India Jinherently vests such authority in the Government. The guidelines itself, as also the opinions given by the 2nd respondent on two occasions disclosing the entire facts relating to the Primary Health Centre as also the letter of the 4th respondent were before the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Even though he did not say in so many words, yet the order discloses him to have seen the file and to have passed the order directing the shifting. Since materials are available on record to show that some factorsexisted on the basis of which decision in favour of shifting could have been taken, and that there could be exigencies of the situation for the purpose, it cannot be said that the decision was void and that there were absolutely no materials to support it. Once it is found that there were some materials to support the decision, their adequacy or inadequacy is not justiciable. In that view of the matter I do not find any merits in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed but without costs.