IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 399/2011 Decided on:19.10.2011 _____________________________________________ Kahan Singh Aukta. …Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : In person. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 23.8.2011 of the learned Single Judge rendered in CWP No. 279/2011. 2. Appellant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “petitioner” for convenience sake) has assailed the decision of the respondent-State whereby it has decided to shift Irrigation and Public Health Sub Division from Baghi to Gumma on 20.4.2001. Learned Single Judge on the basis of well settled principles dismissed the petition on 23.8.2011 by holding that it is a matter of policy where the office should be located. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 3. Mr. Kahan Singh Aukta has argued that the decision to open Irrigation and Public Health Sub Division Baghi was taken in larger public interest on 18.6.1986. According to him, it has worked satisfactorily and the genuine grievances of the residents of the area were redressed. According to him, the decision has been taken to shift Irrigation and Public Health Sub Division from Baghi to Gumma on 20.4.2001 on political considerations. He also brought to the notice of the Court that the distance between Baghi and Gumma is 30 KMs and the distance between already existing Irrigation and Public Health Sub Division, Kotkhai and Gumma is only 5 KMs. 4. We are of the considered view that the scope of judicial review in such like matters is very limited. The question where the Sub Division should be located is in the realm of policy. It is only in the rarest of rare cases where the decision is actuated with mala fide or is in contravention of the statutory law, the Court can direct the State Government to re-look into the matter. We are of the view that this matter can also be re-looked into by the respondent-State in case the petitioner makes a representation for cancellation of notification dated 20.4.2001 to the Secretary, Irrigation and Public Health, Government of H.P., within a period of three weeks from 3 today. Thereafter, the Secretary shall decide the same by passing a speaking order and also after taking into consideration that the Irrigation and Public Health Sub Division, Baghi had been working since June, 1986 and the distance between two places, i.e. Baghi and Gumma is more than 30 KMs. He will also look into the fact that the distance between Irrigation and Public Health Sub Divisions Gumma and Kotkhai is 5 KMs. This way, the genuine grievance of the residents of the area can be redressed since the Irrigation and Public Health Department discharges duties of great public importance, that too, in interior areas like Baghi in District Shimla. It shall be open to the respondents to explore the possibilities of opening a new Sub Division of Irrigation and Public Health at Baghi without disturbing the present arrangement in larger public interest. 5. Accordingly, in view of observations and directions made hereinabove, the Letters Paten Appeal is disposed of. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 19.10.2011 *awasthi*