ANKU CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for directions to the State Government to continue the Health Sub Centre at village Chairh and for conducting an inquiry in regard to the construction of building for Health Sub Centre at Chairh. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that a Health Sub Centre was sanctioned for village Chairh in the year 1979 and it became functional on 29.8.1979. The same was opened under special ST/SC Component Plan for the benefit of SCs and STs. It was alleged that the population of SCs/STs was more in these villages and, therefore, it was sanctioned for Chairh. It was also alleged that it was centrally located village and it was convenient to most of the population of the area. It was further alleged that in the year 1991, tenders were also invited for the construction of building for Health Sub Centre, Chairh, but the construction was started at village Harog and without the approval of any authority, Health Sub Centre, Chairh, was shifted to village Harog.

(2.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that since the Centre sanctioned at Chairh was catering to the population of Scheduled Castes surrounding Chairh and, therefore, the Centre was wrongly shifted to Harog and the directions should be issued to the State Government to open the Health Sub Centre at village Chairh and order an inquiry in regard to the shifting.

(3.) During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the one letter written by Block Medical Officer to Chief Medical Officer dated 11.7.2005 (Annexure P-4) as well as Annexure P-5 letter written by the Chief Medical Officer to the Director Health Services dated 14.7.2005. Thereafter, there is another letter written by the Director Health Services to Principal Secretary (Health), to the Govt. of H.P., (Annexure P-6) dated 22.7.2005, in which all have recommended that Centre should have been opened at Chairh. On the strengthen of these letters, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Centre was wrongly shifted to Harog and as such, the same should be shifted again to Chairh.