1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No  5708   of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 21662 of 2017)

Dr Ashok Sinha                 .... Appellant(s)

      Versus

The State of Tripura & Ors.                  ....Respondent(s)

O R D E R

 Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Leave granted.

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”.   

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.   

1 “Tripura Medical College”

2

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.   

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

3

(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.

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.   

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 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

4

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.   

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

5

arrangement which can be questioned in the exercise of judicial review.   

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 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.

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.   

For  the  above  reasons,  we  find  no  merit  in  the  appeal  which  is

dismissed. No costs.    

…………...…...….......………………........J.                                                                     [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                              [Indira Banerjee]

 New Delhi;  July 19, 2019