ORDER :

1. Two different sets of writ petitions, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, have been filed before this Court initially, in 2016, three writ petitions were filed, namely W.P. (PIL) Nos. 136, 142 and 145 of 2016, challenging the Cabinet decision dated 31.01.2015, whereby the Council of Ministers had resolved to construct a new Secretariat building complex in the same campus where the Secretariat buildings were existing. These writ petitions also challenged the G.O. Ms. No. 166, General Administration (SB) Department, dated 24.03.2015, whereby the State government had constituted a Committee to decide and finalize the construction of new Secretariat Building Complex. However, subsequently, the said writ petitions were amended in order to challenge the Cabinet decision dated 18.6.2019, whereby the Cabinet was contemplating either to modify the present Secretariat, or to demolish the same in order to construct a Secretariat Building complex.

2. The two writ petitions filed in the year 2019, namely W.P. (PIL) Nos. 66 and 71 of 2019, have also challenged the Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019. Since all he five writ petitions are challenging the same Cabinet decision, since similar arguments have been raised by different learned counsel, all the writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The extract of the Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019 is as under:

“Agenda Item: 36

TR&B Department - (i) The Council of Ministers discussed about the need to have a befitting Secretariat Building for Telangana State and decided to construct a new Secretariat at the same site by suitable modifications of the old Secretariat. In view of disturbance caused by the construction of new Secretariat, the Council of Ministers also decided for temporary shifting of Secretariat for a few months. The direction was also given to enumerate numbers and conditions of all residential accommodation meant for Government Officials and employees.

(ii)..................”

4. In unison, the learned counsels for the petitioners have raised the following contentions before this Court:-

“Firstly, the impugned decision is an unreasonable one. For, prior to taking the said decision, no material was placed before the Cabinet in order for the Cabinet to conclude that there is a need for demolishing the present Secretariat, and for constructing a new one. Therefore, the decision is capricious and whimsical one. Hence, it is an arbitrary decision taken without any rhyme or reason.

Elaborating this argument, Ms. B. Rachna, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No. 145 of 2016, has emphasized the fact that since no material was placed before the Cabinet so as to conclude that there is a necessity of constructing a new Secretariat complex, the impugned decision suffers from Wednesbury principle of unreasonable. Relying on the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation, (1947) 2 All ER 680 the learned counsel has contended that the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness emphasizes four facets of the decision making process: firstly, material which ought not to be considered has been considered by the decision maker; secondly, material which is relevant, but has been ignored by the decision maker; thirdly, the decision is in contravention of law bestowed by Parliament; fourthly, if the decision arrived is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a decision. If some of these elements exist in the decision making process, then the decision is said to suffer from Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness.

Furthermore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned decision dated 18.06.2019 had no pre-text, context, or sub-text. For, prior to taking of the said decision, no material was placed before the Cabinet to reach the said decision. There were neither any expert committee reports, nor any plans, nor any indication as to the cost of construction, nor was any environmental clearance s