IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 279 of 2011 Reserved on: 09.08.2011 Decided on: 23.08.2011 Kahan Singh Aukta …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the shifting of the Irrigation and Public Health Sub Division Baghi from Baghi to Gumma. 2. The undisputed facts are that the Sub Division of the Irrigation and Public Health Department was created at Baghi on 18.06.1986 and staff for the said Division was shifted from Shimla and Jubbal to Baghi. On 16.03.2001, the respondent- State passed an order shifting the headquarter of the Irrigation 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- and Public Health Department, Baghi from Baghi to Gumma in the public interest. 3. The petitioner made various representations, but having got no relief from the Government has now approached this Court praying that the order shifting the IP&H Sub Division from Baghi to Gumma is against public interest and the respondent-State be directed to again shift back the headquarter of the IP&H Sub Division to Baghi. 4. At the outset, it may be stated that the petition is highly belated. The impugned order was passed on 16.03.2001 and the present petition has been filed on 1st January, 2011, i.e. almost a decade later. There is virtually no explanation for the inordinate delay except that various representations were made. Filing of one representation after the other will not, in any manner, extend limitation and in my view, the petition should be rejected only on the ground of delay and laches. 5. Even on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that this Court cannot interfere in such matters. The place, where an office is to be situate, is for the Government to decide and the populace of the area can have no grievance unless they show that the action is arbitrary, mala fide or affects their rights. Interference may be called for in cases of schools, dispensaries etc. where the people are directly affected by the shifting or establishment of schools. Where only offices, which -: 3 :- have no direct link with the public, are shifted, the residents have no right to challenge such shifting. 6. In this behalf, reference may be made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ganesh Dutt and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, AIR 1989 Himachal Pradesh 35. That was a case where the dispute was regarding the site of a school. This Court clearly held that the location of a Government School is a matter which must be decided primarily on the basis of the need and convenience of the people and the locality. It also held that the frequent changes in the decision with respect to the site of an existing school would affect the school going children of tender age and are bound to result in hardship and inconvenience to them. It was in these circumstances that this Court interfered in the matter. This judgment is not at all applicable to the present case, since that was a case where the rights and interest of the children and their parents were vitally affected by the shifting of the school. 7. A Division bench of this Court in Amar Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, 1998 (2) Shim.L.C. 508, was dealing with a case where the Circle Office of Shahnehar Project was shifted from Jwali to Fatehpur. The allegation was that the shifting had been ordered for mala fide and extraneous reasons. This Court, after referring to a number of judgments, held as follows: -: 4 :- 24. Applying the principles enunciated above to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the policy decision of the Government in this case is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and the petitioners and other residents of Jawali do not have any legally protected or personal or individual rights in exercise of which they can ask for a writ of mandamus to direct the Government to continue the Circle Headquarter at Jawali. Further, on the facts and circumstances on record, the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the administrative and policy decision to shift Circle Headquarter from Jawali to Fatehpur is unreasonable, arbitrary, mala fide, taken for extraneous reasons and in colourable exercise of powers to enable us to hold it illegal and unconstitutional. 25. In the end, we may refer to paragraph 14 of a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddi, etc. v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, AIR 1980 SC 1992, wherein it is held that one basic principle which must guide the Court in arriving at its determination on the question whether the action of the Government is reasonable and in public interest is that, “there is always a presumption that the Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by proper and adequate material. The Court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or without public interest because, as we said above, there are a large number of policy considerations which must necessarily weigh with the Government in taking action and therefore the Court would not strike down Governmental action as invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied that the action is unreasonable or not in public interest. But where it is so satisfied, it would be the plainest duty of the Court under the Constitution to invalidate the Governmental action. This is one of the most important functions of the Court and also one of the most essential for preservation of the rule of law.” 8. Similar view was taken by another Division bench of this Court in Ishwar Dass versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 1999 (3) Shim. L.C. 77, wherein challenge was to the order -: 5 :- whereby the HPPWD Division, Nirmand, which was under the control of the 11th Circle, HPPWD, Rampur, was brought under the administrative/technical control of 6th Circle, HPPWD, Kullu. The petitioner in that case was a member of the Legislative Assembly of the area, but despite this, this Court held that in a matter of policy, as to where an office should be located or under whose control it should function, the Court would not exercise its writ jurisdiction. 9. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 23, 2011 (rajni)