THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6359 of 2010 Dated:22.03.2010 Between: Golla Naganna. …Petitioner And The District Collector, Kurnool District, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6359 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of Ketavaram Village of Orvakal Mandal in Kurnool District. He is also statedly Ex-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is his case that the Government sanctioned a pucca building for Anganwadi Centre. Accordingly, as directed by Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) authorities, he made the infrastructure ready and provided land, road, water and other facilities. According to him on 23.02.2004 the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution to construct Anganwadi Centre in the land admeasuring 49.17 square metres in survey No.146. After the elections to the Gram Panchayat in 2006, under the new Gram Panchayat, Anganwadi Centre is being constructed in private land near the graveyard ignoring the earlier resolution. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to construct the Anganwadi Centre in the land comprised in Survey No.146 of Ketavaram Village. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. According to him it is not congenial to construct Anganwadi Centre near the graveyard. The land in Survey No.146 is well suited for construction of Anganwadi Centre. The issue raised in this writ petition is not justiciable. The allocation of Gram Panchayat Offices, Anganwadi Centres and school buildings is a matter which is left to the executive discretion. Unless and until any mala fide exercise of power is alleged and proved, ordinarily the Court would not entertain such matters. Judicial restraint is one aspect of the judicial review. It has been repeatedly held that the matters concerning developmental works, war, foreign affairs are impliedly not justiciable. In J.R.Raghupathy v. State of A.P.[1], the Supreme Court laid down that such decisions are not amenable to judicial review, as they would not give rise to any legal right in favour of an aggrieved. It was held as under. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the Gram Panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place ‘X’ rather than place ‘Y’ as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into these matters. If the petitioner is aggrieved he may approach the District Collector for necessary redressal. The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.03.2010 vs [1] AIR 1988 SC 1681 = (1988) 4 SCC 364