1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7860 OF 2009 Suresh s/o Shahaji Potre and ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 and others ..Respondents Mr. A.K.Tiwari, Advocate for petitioners Mr. S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3 Respondents 4 and 5 served CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 22nd April 2010 PER COURT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ directing respondents for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 17.9.2009 directing the construction of school on land at Gut No.233 of village Pimpalwadi. The petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to construct a school building at Potrewasti (Pimpalwadi), Taluka Karjat on land at Gut No.287 of which the petitioners have already executed the gift deed to the extent of 5 – R land. 2. It appears that the policy decision of the Government of establishing Wasti school met with considerable success at this village 2 and subsequently, the wasti school came to be converted into regular school by virtue of the policy decision of the Government taken some time in the year 2008. In order to make the land available for construction of school, the petitioners had volunteered to gift a part of their land at Gut No.287. Land at Gut No.288 is adjacent to the land of the petitioners while according to the petitioners, land at Gut No.233 is situated at a distance of 2 to 3 kms. from the main village. According to the petitioners the impugned order came to be passed by the respondents directing the construction of the school at land at Gut No.233. The petitioners claim that the parents and the other villagers have strongly objected to the construction of school at land at Gut No.233 on account of the fact that the said land is situated at a considerable distance. The petitioners, therefore, state that the petition be allowed by directing the respondents to construct the school on the land of the petitioners at Gut No.287. 3. Mr.S.T.Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 has pointed out that the construction of the school is virtually complete and only the plastering and finishing part of the building remained to be done. It is further urged before us as to where the school is to be located is a matter purely an administrative decision and as the said decision is neither arbitrary nor is it violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners, the Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction would not exercise the judicial review in respect of such administrative decision. 3 4. As to where the school is to be constructed and which is the area best suited to construct the school is a decision which has to be arrived at on the basis of whatever material or the data the authorities may have. This Court cannot in the exercise of writ jurisdiction substitute its opinion and direct the construction of a school much less at a different place than the place selected by the authorities. Merely because the petitioners have volunteered to gift a part of their land, the petitioners have no legally enforceable right to claim that the school be constructed in their land. Moreover, the construction of the school is virtually complete and only plastering and finishing part of the building remained to be done. 5. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the petition and the petition is summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/7860.09wp)