IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6042 of 2011 Date of Decision: 07.12.2011 Chet Ram Berwal and others ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. V.B.Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. O.S.Batalvi, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Amardeep Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. S.S.Dalal, Advocate, for respondent No. 8. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking a direction from the Court for setting up a Model School at village Bhatla instead of village Ghirai under a centrally sponsored scheme. 2. The petitioner contends that establishment of the Model School at village Ghirai instead of village Bhatla is contrary to the recommendations of the Panchayat Samiti and hence not in conformity with the Centrally sponsored scheme in force. It is further submitted that there are three schools existing at village Ghirai and therefore, the decision to set up a Model Schol at that place is an arbitrary one which needs interference by this Court. CWP No. 6042 of 2011 [2] 3. From the materials on record, particularly the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 and 7, it appears that the Model School in village Ghirai has started functioning from 01.07.2011. Whether the school should be set up in a particular village as recommended, and if not legal consequences thereof, and whether such a decision would be amenable to judicial interference is a matter which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case considering the fact that the school has already started functioning from village Ghirai and that under a centrally sponsored scheme there may be occasion to set up further schools in future in which case setting up of school in village Bhatla can be considered, we deem it appropriate to come to the conclusion that the present is not a fit case for interference in the exercise of our PIL jurisdiction. We, therefore, decline to interfere leaving it open for the respondents to consider the feasibility of setting up a school under any centrally sponsored scheme in village Bhatla in future if such an action is considered to be appropriate. Beyond the above, no further direction, according to us, will be called for. PIL, therefore, stands disposed of in terms of the above. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 07.12.2011 'ravinder'