WP(C) 2016/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA By means of this writ petition, the three petitioners have praye d for a direction to the respondents not to shift the particular Health Sub-cent er to any other place other than the present site. It appears that the responden ts have decided to construct a new building to accommodate the Health Sub-center . While it is the case of the petitioners that the new construction should be in the present site in which the present Health Sub-center is running since 1988, it is the case of the respondents that the proposed construction site is central ly located and will be convenient for the public, if the Health Sub-center is lo cated there. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 donated the l and measuring one bigha to the Health Sub-center vide Annexure-1 document. The p etitioners have also referred to the minutes of meeting held on 28.2.2008 urging upon the authority to construct the proposed building in the present site inste ad of the site selected by them. Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-4 endorsement dated 24.3.2008 by which the S.D.M. & H.O., Darrang i ntimated the I/C Kharupetia P.H.C. that the Sub-center should be at the site sel ected by majority of the public. From this document, it is not discernible as to whether the construction was proposed in the present site, which according to t he petitioners is more conducive or the site, which has been selected by the res pondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it has stated t hat work order has already been issued for construction of the building and by n ow approximately 70% of the construction of the Sub-center is over. It is the fu rther case of the respondents that the site in which the building is being const ructed is more conducive being centrally located than the site for which the pet itioners have approached this Court. It is not for the Writ Court to decide as to from which site the Sub-center should run. It is for the authority to decide taking into account th e interest pf the public. Further, except the three petitioners, no other villag ers have approached this Court. In view of the above, I do not any merit in the writ petition an d accordingly it is dismissed.