36 /- \ PETITiONERi 1. Narayan Prasad Yadav Aged about 55 years S/o Sahas Ram 2. Jan Singh Aged about 40 years, S/o Devi Singh Thakur Both are R/o Viilage, Lafpur, Tahsil - Kota, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) '"'.' 1. C.G. Government through Collector iilaspur (C.G.) 2 Brijlal Singh Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Pondi Tahsil - Kota, Dist: Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. District Project Co-ordinator Sarwa Shiksa Abhiyan iilaspur (C.G.) 4. The Tahsildar Ratanpur Tahsil - Ratanpur, Dist: Bilaspur (C.G.) Mr. Ashok Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned Addl. A.G. with Mr. Utks Verma, learned Dy. G.A. for the State. [Passed on 30"' January 2006) The fo!!owing oral order of the Court was passed by IAYAK,CJ: "2-— 37 1. ^- The question brought before the Court by way of this Public Interest Litlgation relates to the question of sxpediency and deslrability of having a school building in Lalpur viilage or in Ghasipur village. According to the petitioners' counsel, the Government having granted funds to construct a school building in Lalpur viilage, should not construct the building in Ghasipur village as suggested by certain political leaders. Although, that is the contention of learned counse! for the petitioners, there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the concerned Governmenta! Authorities have decided to construct the bui'ding in Ghasipur village to house a schoo!. Alternatively, it needs to be noticed that even assuming that the authorities ultimately decide that the school building should be constructed in Ghasipur village which is admittedly adjoining to the village Lalpur, in the public interest and in the interest of schooi-going children, it is not for this Court So sit in judgment over such a decision taken by public authorities. Be that as it may, the issue brought before the Court certainly does not merit the acceptance as a Public Interest Litigation and that the Court should undertake adjudication of the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. The petitioners though bona fide in their approach, cannot dictate the terms as to where a school building should situate unless it is shown satisfactorily that the decision taken by the public authorities in that regard is tainted by factua! ma/a fide or for some extraneous or coilateral consideration. That is not the case made out by the petitioners in this case. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition at the stage of admission itse!f. No costs. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Juctge Sd/- Chief Justice ^A>^