Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 1872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, Bipin Chander Negi, J
Dewa Nand – Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CWPIL No.52 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dewa Nand (In person)
For the Respondents: Pranay Pratap Singh
A Public Interest Litigation challenging administrative policy decisions is not maintainable if the petitioner lacks locus standi and fails to show fundamental right violations, as courts will not interfere in purely administrative decisions regarding government office locations when justified by policy considerations.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Locus standi - Challenge to administrative decision regarding shifting of government office - Petitioner, a practicing lawyer, failed to demonstrate sufficient interest or public injury - PIL cannot be used for personal grievances or by meddlesome interlopers - Courts must exercise restraint and distinguish between genuine public interest and vexatious litigation. (Paras 7, 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a practicing lawyer appearing in person, challenged a government notification shifting the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wild Life) from Shimla to Dharamshala, alleging it was a politically motivated decision. The State defended the move as a policy decision taken by the Cabinet to address space constraints in Shimla and leverage proximity to ongoing conservation projects in the Dharamshala region.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the petition lacked merit on the ground of maintainability. It held that the petitioner, as an individual lawyer, had no locus standi to challenge a policy decision that did not violate the rights of disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, the court observed that the shifting of offices falls within the scope of administrative policy, which is immune from judicial interference absent arbitrariness or illegality.
Issues: Whether the petition is maintainable as a PIL regarding the transfer of a government office and whether the administrative decision is subject to judicial review as a policy determination.
Ratio Decidendi: A PIL is only maintainable if the petitioner is acting bona fide to advance the cause of disadvantaged groups. Mere administrative shifts of offices, backed by reasons such as de-congestion and proximity to project sites, are policy decisions outside the purview of judicial review, provided there is no manifest illegality.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of events and state's administrative rationale for office relocation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. locus standi requirement to maintain a pil and non-interference in policy decisions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed by a practicing Lawyer, who appears in person, challenging the notification dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the Office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wild Life), Himachal Pradesh, has been shifted from Shimla to the Office building of CPD KFW Project Office, Dharamshala, District Kangra. The Office of CPD, KFW, Dharamshala has further been shifted to the vacated Office of CF Wildlife Dharamshala, District Kangra. Thus, in sum and substance, the Offices of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), Himachal Pradesh and the Office of CF Wildlife, Dharamshala will be housed together in one premises at Dharamshala. The challenge, as such, is sought to be justified on the issue of locus standi that it is in the interest of general public and the shifting of the Office is a political decision and liable to be quashed. Reference has also been made to an earlier instance, when allegedly on account of political influence, the Office of Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) was shifted from Shimla to Hamirpur in 1998.
2. An argument has been sought to be raised that there are various Sanctuaries, National Parks, Forest Conversations and Zoos in Shimla District and therefore shifting them, which are under the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, thus would hamper the functioning as such, at Dharamshala, which is at a distance of more than 230 Kilometers.
3. The State has also filed its response that it is a policy decision and no arbitrariness has been shown and the locus standi as such is also questioned. The decision of shifting was taken after due consideration by the Council of Ministers (Cabinet), a copy of the Cabinet memo along-with approval is annexed as Annexure R2/I, in support of the same. A plea has also been taken by the State that for de-congestion of the Offices/Buildings in Shimla, the Government has taken a decision to shift as many as 07 other Offices also from Shimla to various stations, including Dharamshala. It has also been averred that an International Level Zoological Park has to be constructed at Bankhandi, Dehra District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, namely ‘Durgesharnay Kangra International Zoological Park’, which is about 40 Kilometers from Dharamshala, therefore, it would be feasible for the Office of Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), H.P. to supervise and maintain the affairs of the constructions of the said Park from Dharamshala.
4. Reference has also been made to the Pong Dam Lake Wildlife Sanctuary located near Dharamshala, which is one of the major wetland sanctuaries in India and thus that it would be feasible for the Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), H.P. to supervise and maintain the affairs of said sanctuary at Dharamshala easily. It has further been averred that State Wildlife Training Institute is also proposed to be established in the complex of ‘Durgesharnay Kangra International Zoological Park’. Further, it has been averred that in Himachal Pradesh, there are about 28 Wildlife Sanctuaries, 05 National Parks and 05 Conversation Reserves. It has also been averred that Dharamshala is more suitable place than Shimla to maintain the affairs of all these Sanctuaries, National Parks and Conservation Reserves which can be effectively managed from Dharamshala. It has been averred that the Office has already been shifted and had started functioning at Dharamshala.
5. It is also pertinent to mention that the petition was listed for the first time on 11.07.2025, i.e., almost after two months of the issuance of the notification (14.05.2025). It has been averred by the State that almost equal space has been provided to the Office of Principal Chief Conservator of F
