Non-Implementation Of Cabinet Decision Against Public Interest: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Against Order Of Bringing UCMS Block Under Govt’s Control
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by associations consisting of teaching and non-teaching staff of the University College of Medical Sciences (UCMS) challenging various orders to implement the Union Cabinet’s Decision by which the Central Government decided to bring UCMS Block and Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital Complex (UCMSB-GTBH) under the unified control of Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD).
The Court said that the non-implementation of the Cabinet Decision at the instance of the associations is against the public interest.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet P.S. Arora observed, “We are of the considered opinion that the non-implementation of the Cabinet Decision at the instance of the Petitioners herein (who have a tacit support of Respondent No. 4, DU) has acted against public interest (i.e., patients and students) and is only focusing to serve the private interest of the employees and the staff of UCMS. This is glaringly evident from the report of the incident of the unfortunate death of an injured patient on 02nd January, 2024 filed before this Court on 25 th January, 2024 in W.P. (C) 8548/2017 and the relocation plan placed before this Court along with CM APPL. 980/2024, which highlights the failing and grossly lacking infrastructure at UCMS leading to non-provision of critical services to the patients.”
The Bench said that the petition is barred by doctrine of estoppel in view of the history of this matter, where successive directions have been issued by the Court for urgent unification of the administrative control of the College and the Hospital by GNCTD.
Senior Advocate A.K. Singla represented the petitioners while Advocate Monika Arora represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The Cabinet Decision was passed to find a solution to the chronic problem of dual administrative control of University of Delhi (‘DU’ or ‘University’) and GNCTD over the UCMSB-GTBH. The adverse effects of the dual control were judicially noticed by the Division Bench of the Court as far back on May 31, 2002, in its judgment passed in W.P. (C) No. 4072/1997 titled as Supreme Court Young Advocates Forum v. UOI wherein the Court recorded that there exists administrative mismanagement in UCMSB-GTBH which led to poor medical services being provided to the citizens. The Cabinet Decision was taken in consequence of the directions issued by the Division Bench in its judgment to find an administrative solution. The Cabinet Decision though dated August 25, 2005 remained unimplemented by the respondent until the year 2014.
Subsequently, in pursuance to further proceedings, the concerned respondents prodded by the Court took steps to give effect to the said Cabinet Decision between the year 2014 and 2016; and finally, GNCTD issued an order dated September 30, 2016 (‘Impugned Order’) calling upon DU to hand over the complete administrative and financial control of UCMS [to GNCTD] with effect from December 1, 2016. In this backdrop, the petitioners filed the petition in the year 2016 opposing the takeover of UCMS by GNCTD. The grounds of challenge and opposition to the said takeover was the perceived apprehension that the promotions, inter-se seniority, service conditions and timely payment of salaries of the staff working at UCMS would be adversely affected due to the said takeover. The petitioners were desirous that the control of UCMS should be retained by DU and not handed over to GNCTD.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “Though there is no direct challenge to the Cabinet Decision dated 25th August 2005, the Petitioners have stalled the implementation of the said decision in these proceedings and the consequence is that the public interest has suffered due to the duality of control leading to declining and poor medical services at the Hospital. Secondly, neither the Petitioners nor Respondent No. 4, DU have made out any grounds for seeking a direction as prayed for in the writ petition and CM No. 34237/2017.”
The Court added that it is settled law that Cabinet Decisions are not lightly interfered with by the Constitutional Court in the absence there being any material brought to the notice of the Court while assailing the said decision as being unconstitutional or arbitrary in nature or contrary to law.
“In the facts of this case, there is no such challenge laid to the Cabinet Decision and the basis of resisting the takeover by the Petitioners and the Delhi University is merely the apprehension of conflict of promotions, seniority upon merger of the employees of the College and the Hospital and related service condition. In the opinion of this Court, the said grounds taken in the petition and argued before this Court cannot be the basis for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Cabinet Decision dated 25th August, 2005”, it also said.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the caution to be exercised by the Constitutional Court, while interfering with Cabinet Decisions is well settled in the decisions of the Supreme Court.
“As a matter of rule, this Court does not substitute its view in the decision of the Government with regard to policy matters and administrative decisions, unless it runs counter to the mandate of the Constitution. In the matter of policy decision by the Cabinet so long as the infringement of Fundamental Rights is not shown, the Courts have no occasion to interfere and substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive”, it added.
The Court said that the petitioners have been unable to show any violation of their fundamental rights and that they do not make out any basis for interference with the decision of the Union Cabinet.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitions.
Cause Title- Gopesh Mehrotra and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:1366-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate A.K. Singla, Advocates Akshit Sachdeva, Santosh Kumar, Kushagra Aman, and Adithya Ramni.
Respondents: Advocates Monika Arora, Subhrodeep Saha, Kushal, Kirtiman Singh, Waize Ali Noor, Vidhi Jian, Shreya V. Mehra, ASC Sameer Vashisht, Advocates Harshita Nathrani, Vanshay Kaul, Aman Singh, Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Hardik Rupal, and Pragati Keshri.
