Judicial review of administrative decisions related to the construction of public utility buildings is limited to cases of flagrant violation of law/rules or malafides.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This writ petition is preferred seeking the following reliefs:

"1. Impugned proposal No.2 and the minute of meeting dated 05.02.2021n and letter dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure-18) and impugned order dated 123.02.2021 (Annexure-19) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. The respondents authorities be directed to accept the offered unutilized school building and land falling Khasra No.569/126 of village Poshal for the purpose of construction of Panchayat Bhawajn Headquarter for Gram Panchayat Poshal or allotment of land surrendered by getting administrative permission of Khasra No.679/432 and 680/432."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier lands of Khasra No.679/432 & 680/432 were earmarked for the purpose of construction of Panchayat Bhawan, however, later on, the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat has illegally passed a resolution that the Gram Panchayat Bhawan be constructed in Khasra No.106. It is submitted that the said proposal of the Gram Panchayat is accepted by the authorities concerned and they have decided to construct the Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Poshal in Khasra No.106. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners and other villagers have already represented themselves before the authorities concerned with a prayer that change of place for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan is illegal. It is also submitted that the earlier land, proposed for the purpose of construction of Gram Panchayat Bhawan, is more suitable than the new earmarked land. It is, therefore, prayed that the authorities concerned be directed to construct new Panchayat Bhawan in Khasra No.679/432 & 680/432.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record, I do not find any case for interference in this writ petition.

4. It is settled law that the matter regarding construction of building of public utility is the domain of the Government and its functionaries and until and unless it is demonstrated that there is flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it suffer from malafides, no interference is permissible in such administrative matters while exercising powers of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P., (1988) 4 SCC 364 has observed as under:-

"31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the Gram Panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place 'X' rather than place 'Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners".

6. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any malafide in the actions of respondents and have also failed to prove violation of any law.

7. In view of the above, I do not find a