IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15496 of 2009 1. BABU LAL YADAV S/O HARO YADAV THE SECRETARY OF VIDYALAYA SHIKSHA SAMITI, PRATHMIK VIDYALAYA MORWAY UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT SOUTH LOADHWAY, P.O.-GUPPA, P.S.- FATEHPUR, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GAYA 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, GAYA 6. BLOCK EXTENSION EDUCATION OFFICER, FATEHPUR BLOCK, DISTT.- GAYA 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, FATEHPUR BLOCK, DISTT.- GAYA 8. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, FATEHPUR ANCHAL DISTT.- GAYA 9. ADDL. COLLECTOR CUM SENIOR OFFICER, PUBLIC COMPLAINT CELL, GAYA ---------------- 2. 15.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2008 directing stoppage of construction work of the school building pending an appropriate decision in view of certain internecine dispute in the village with regard to location of the school when the petitioner has been asked to produce the necessary documents etc. for a final appropriate decision. On the own showing of the petitioner, under Rule 11(iii) of the Prarambhik Vidyalay Samiti Adhinium, 2007, it is the State Government which is competent give directions for construction of the school building and to monitor the same. From Annexures 9 and 10 to the writ application itself, it is more than evident from the official reports submitted that there was a serious dispute amongst the members of the village with regard to the location of the school and the lands in question upon - 2 - which it was to be located. Location of school at one or another place in the village is a policy matter for State Government to decide. It is not for the Court to take over the role of the administrator and supplant the policy decision by its own thinking. The Supreme Court in 2001(10) SCC 75 deprecated the interference by the High Court in such more so under threat of contempt proceeding, interfering with the location of the school and giving directions for its shifting holding that “So long as the government decision is not actuated with any malice or is not the outcome of an arbitrary and whimsical act, the same should not be interfered with by a Court of law under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” This Court has already noticed hereinabove the statutory powers of the State Government to give appropriate directions. There is no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)