IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.566 of 2001 Date of decision: 7.7.2008. Ram Jitu ....Petitioner -Versus- State of H.P. and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate For Respondents: M/s.R.M. Bisht & Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.Gs. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This Public Interest writ petition is directed against the shifting of Primary School Sihanj. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 29th February, 1996 the State of Himachal Pradesh directed that a Primary School be opened in Village Sihanj falling under Gram Panchayat Mandhi. It is not disputed that in fact a school was opened in the said village in some accommodation provided by one Sh.Tej Ram free of cost. The respondents thereafter took a decision to construct the school on a piece of land donated by one Sh.Surat Ram son of Sh.Hirdu, R/o Village Sihanj. This land is about 0.5 kms from the village but falls under the jurisdiction of another Gram Panchayat. 2 The main contention of the petitioner is that the school has been shifted from the place where it was notified to be set up and since the shifting is in violation of the notification dated 29th February, 1996 the school should not be permitted to be shifted. The stand of the State is that the residents of village Sihanj, Balidhar, Shahot as well as the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Mandhi, approached the Block Education Officer that the site on which the school is proposed to be constructed is not suitable and the best site is the one which has been donated by Surat Ram. The Block Education Officer deputed the Assistant Executive Engineer to visit the spot. The said Engineer visited both the sites and after visiting the entire area came to the conclusion that the land donated by Surat Ram is most suitable for the purposes of the construction of the school. One of the petitioners before us was a resident of village Nindabai. There is no manner of doubt that as far as the residents of this village are concerned the new proposed site will be further away from their village. The other school which was to be served by the Primary School Sihanj is village Jong. According to the respondents another Primary School had already been opened at village Jong. The respondents also submit that the children of village Nindabai can also study in the existing Primary School Bagail which is at a lesser distance than Sihanj. 3 We have heard Sh.K.S. Kanwar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sh.R.M. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents. The main contention of the petitioner is that till the notification dated 29th February, 1996 is not modified the school has to be continued in village Sihanj falling under the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Mandhi. This argument on first blush sounds attractive. However, on perusal of the map Annexure R-1/6 filed by the respondents it is apparent that the proposed site is merely at a distance of 0.5 kms. from village Sihanj. It however falls under a different Gram Panchayat. It would not be out of place to mention that all the villagers of village Sihanj have represented that this site is most suitable. The School was to be opened in village Sihanj. One of the villagers of this village has provided land free of cost to the State and has executed a gift deed in this regard. As far as Tej Ram is concerned, though an averment has been made that he has provided accommodation free of cost in village Sihanj but nothing has been placed on record whether he has gifted the land to the Education Department or not. Further more in a public interest litigation we cannot go into these disputed questions of fact as to which is most suitable site. We may however clarify that the respondent alongwith their reply have filed a large number of documents which prima facie show that a majority of the villagers of the area prefer the new proposed site. Even the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Mandhi has supported the construction of the school on 4 the land gifted by Surat Ram. It is thus clear that most of the residents of the area want to have the school on this land. We therefore do not feel that this is a case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case we feel that there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. Stay order, if any, shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge July 7, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV Judge