PIL 80/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL Amitava Roy, J Heard Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BK Sarma, learned State Counsel, representing the Social Welfare Department, Ass am. The petitioners include Presidents of social service organizatio n as well as elderly persons of the locality falling under the territorial limit s of the ICDS Project, Katigorah. The instant proceeding in the form of a publi c interest litigation has been initiated by them, registering a challenge agains t the decision of the Director of Social Welfare, Assam, to shift the office of the Katigorah ICDS Project from its current location at Kalain to Katigorah. Ve ntilating the grievance against the said decision mainly on the ground of inconv enience of all concerned including the Anganwadi helpers and workers as well as the members of the public at large, a representation against the same was submit ted on 27.02.2009 with the CDPO, Katigorah ICDS Project, Cachar. As the same di d not meet any positive response, the public of the locality met on 25.04.2010 t o discuss the issue and outline the remedial steps. It was almost three months thereafter that, on 29.07.2010 another representation was submitted to the Direc tor of Social Welfare, Assam, registering an identical grievance and seeking int ervention of the said authority to review the decision impugned. As the said re presentation also has remained unheeded, the petitioners are before this Court. Mr. Sikdar, has urged that the decision has not been implemented and if it is so done, it would result in uncalled for harassment of the public at large as well as the concerned Anganwadi workers and helpers of the various c entres under the aforementioned project. Mr. Sarma, in reply, has drawn the attention of this Court to th e fact that meanwhile being aggrieved by the above decision a writ petition bein g WP(C) No.1012/2009 had been instituted before this Court, which has not been a dmitted, thereby, negating the assailment. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the pleaded facts, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the same do not disclose any reason calling for interference of this Court in the instant pr oceeding. Not only, evidently, the response of the petitioner’s is inexplicably delayed, having regard to the nature of the decision taken, which is dominantly within the sphere of administrative discretion and exigency, we do not consider it expedient as well to approve judicial intervention. In the above view of the matter, the petition being without any merit is dismissed. No costs.