Administrative discretion in selecting sites for public facilities is generally not subject to judicial review unless the decision is proven to be unreasonable or contrary to public interest, as courts should not substitute their opinion for that of the competent authority.

Bipin Ch ander Negi, Judge

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 21st July, 2025, passed in CWP No. 10558 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by the present appellant has been dismissed. In the writ petition filed a direction was being sought qua construction of a Health Sub Centre Bahi Sarhi at Village Bahi over the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 61/126 Min, area measuring 6 Biswa situated at Mohal Bahi, Sub Tehsil Pangna, District Mandi, H.P. donated by the petitioner.

2. In the case at hand, there were two sides under consideration for constructing the Health Sub Centre. One was situated at Village Bahi and the other was situated at Village Sarhi. Both sites had been donated for constructing a Health Sub Centre. Both the sites were inspected by a duly constituted committee. Due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant who had donated the site situated at Village Bahi. The pros and cons of both sites were considered. The view of available local residents at the time of spot inspection was also taken into consideration. In arriving at the decision impugned before the writ court (Annexure P-14 dated 28.4.2025 at page 170 of the paper book) the Chief Medical Officer besides the aforesaid also took into account public interest. Since the site offered by the appellant was not found suitable therefore vide the decision dated 28.4.2025the Chief Medical Officer ordered return of land of the appellant.

3. At the very outset, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in J.R. Raghupathy vs. State of A.P. and others (1998) 4 SCC 364, wherein the Apex Court observed that

the ultimate decision as to the place or location of Mandal headquarter is left to the government to decide and conferment of discretion upon the concerned authority in that behalf must necessarily leave the choice to the discretion of the said authority and it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the discretion so exercised.

4. The very concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action. Reasonable people can hold different opinions as to which is to be preferred. A difference of opinion, howsoever strong, cannot be confused with unreasonableness. The concern of public laws is to discipline public power, make it operational and to render the same legitimate. In this regard, a reference can be made to (1991) 3 SCC 91 titled as G.B. Mahajan and others vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council and others . Relevant extract whereof reads as under:-

“The concern of public law is to discipline the public power by forging "legal techniques as part of the way in which public power is made operational and part of the process through which it is attempted to render such public power legitimate and to think of issues of legal regulation of public power in a way that goes deeper than particular instances and elaborate issues of general principle". There is, however, as Professor Wade points out, ample room, within the legal boundaries for radical differences of opinion in which neither side is unreasonable. In Tameside case Lord Denning pointed out the error of confusing differences of opinion, however strong, with unreasonableness on the part of one side or the other. Lord Diplock said that the very concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose be