The Patna High Court in the case Munilal Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors observed and has stated that a decision as to where a healthcare cenatre should be located being essentially an issue of executive policy and the said court cannot interfere with it. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation moved wherein seeking a direction for construction of the Additional Primary Health Centre at village Nerthua under Nerthua Panchayat on the land which is selected by the Gram Sabha, thus, the court dismissed the same.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad in the case observed and has held that the petitioners in the plea have not brought any material on record in order to show that proximity to the railway station or highway is preferred for establishment of the health Centre at that very place. Therefore, the same is required to be located and is essentially an issue of executive policy which involves the local self-government so as to provide convenient access of healthcare facilities to the intended beneficiaries. As some of the land are said to have been approved by the Gram Sabha and the same cannot be accepted as being the final word based on which directions can be issued by the court for construction of the Health Centre at that very place.
Therefore, it has also been argued by the petitioner in the plea that the land admeasuring 2 acres and 34 decimal which was being available at a place which being nearest to the Railway Station and National Highway, however, they being under an apprehension that under pressure of superior authorities arising out of political influence, it has been submitted by the Circle Officer a proposal of a different plot which being for the construction of the Primary Health Centre.
The court in the case observed and has noted that the issue has not been raised by the petitioners of proposed shifting of the site for Health Centre, the same is likely to cause any inconvenience or hardship to the beneficiaries intended.
Accordingly, the bench dismissed the petition wherein stating that this court is not inclined to proceed further with the issue as a public
interest litigation.
