Sarasamma A. G. v. District Collector Alleppey — 1971 DIGILAW 115 (KER)

JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the Secretary of an association by name Kanjipadam Vanitha Samajam which is stated to be a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 and she has brought this writ petition in her individual capacity as also on behalf of the said Society. The reliefs prayed for in this writ petition are: "A. To issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to the decision of the respondents in regard to the site for the Sub Centre mentioned in Exhibit P-3 and to quash the same; B. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to choose the site for locating the permanent premises for the Family Planning Welfare Sub Centre at Kanjipadam after taking into consideration the policy of Government to confer the most good on the largest number of the people and without being influenced by extraneous considerations; and C. To restrain the respondents by a writ of prohibition from proceeding further in the matter of construction of the new premises of the Sub Centre in the site under Sy. No. 280/5 in Ambalapuzha Taluk." The respondents to this writ petition are the District Collector, Alleppey, the District Medical Officer, Alleppey, the Block Development Officer, Ambalapuzha Block and the Executive Officer, Ambalapuzha Panchayat respectively. 2. By G.O. MS. 25/65/HLD dated 11th January 1965 the State Government sanctioned the construction of a permanent building to house a Family Planning Sub Centre at Kanjippadam provided the Ambalapuzha Panchayat within whose local limits Kanjippadam is situated is able to obtain tree of cost and place at the disposal of the Health Department a plot of 15 cents of land for locating the said Sub Centre. It appears that the construction of the permanent building, though sanctioned, could not be taken up for a considerable time on account of the inability of the Panchayat to obtain free surrender of the necessary land. Ultimately, however, in May 1970, the 4th respondent-Panchayat succeeded in getting the surrender of a plot of 15 cents, free of cost, in Sy. No. 280/5 and moved the concerned authorities of the Health Department to have the permanent Sub Centre constructed on the said site. Ultimately, however, in May 1970, the 4th respondent-Panchayat succeeded in getting the surrender of a plot of 15 cents, free of cost, in Sy. No. 280/5 and moved the concerned authorities of the Health Department to have the permanent Sub Centre constructed on the said site. The then Medical Officer in charge of family planning appears to have inspected that site and raised certain objections regarding its suitability for the purpose in question and suggested that the availability of alternate sites should also be considered. Subsequently the Vanitha Samajam of which the petitioner claims to be the Secretary approached the Panchayat with an offer to donate 5 cents of land, stating also that the owner of the adjoining plot was prepared to donate an additional extent of 10 cents. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Panchayat that the permanent building for the Sub Centre should be constructed on the said area of 15 cents. It is the case of the petitioner that the plot so offered by her is in every respect superior and more suited for the purpose in question than the land comprised in Sy. No. 280/5 and her grievance is that notwithstanding this, the District Collector has selected the plot originally suggested by the Panchayat (Sy. No. 280/5) for locating the permanent building for the Sub Centre. It is this decision stated to have been taken by the District Collector that the petitioner seeks to get quashed by the issuance of a writ of certiorari. 3. Detailed counter-affidavits have been filed in the case on behalf of the 4th respondent-Panchayat and by the Block Development Officer, Ambalapuzha (3rd respondent) on behalf of himself and the District Collector. 4. A preliminary objection has been taken by the contesting respondents challenging the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this writ petition, their contention being that no legal right whatever of the petitioner or of the Samajam which she claims to represent has been infringed by the impugned decision taken by the Collector in the exercise of a purely administrative function and that hence the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be availed of by the petitioner. There is considerable force in this preliminary objection. There is considerable force in this preliminary objection. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and others 1962 S.C. 1044 it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right and that the right that can be enforced should ordinarily be die personal or individual right of the petitioner himself except in the case of writs like habeas corpus and quo warranto. Reliance is however placed by the petitioner's counsel on certain observations contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 828 as supporting her contention that any party who is in any manner prejudiced by the action of a public officer can seek redress under Article 226 of the Constitution. An examination of the facts of that case as set out in the said decision reveals that that was a case whether the petitioner before the Supreme Court was the president of a Panchayat Samithi who was held by the Court to be the representative of a Committee which was in law the trustee of large amounts collected from the villagers for a public purpose under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act such a body had a distinct statutory role to play and both under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act as also under the General Law the said body was held by the Supreme Court to have a legal interest in the subject-matter of the controversy and was hence a person prejudicially affected in the eye of law by the action impugned in that case. That decision is clearly distinguishable and cannot have any application to the present case where the impugned action is not taken under any statutory provision whatever and the petitioner cannot also be said to have any legal interest in regard to the said matter in her individual capacity or in any representative capacity like that of a trustee. That decision is clearly distinguishable and cannot have any application to the present case where the impugned action is not taken under any statutory provision whatever and the petitioner cannot also be said to have any legal interest in regard to the said matter in her individual capacity or in any representative capacity like that of a trustee. The petitioner's case is only that both the Samajam as well as herself individually are interested in seeing that the Family Planning Sub Centre is located at a convenient place so that the maximum number of the people of the locality may derive the greatest benefit. While it may be that they are sponsoring a public cause with the object of ensuring that the institution is located at a suitable place, it is not possible to hold that they have any legal interest whatever which can be said to have been prejudicially affected by the decision taken by the Collector. Hence they cannot be regarded as persons prejudicially affected in the eye of law so as to come within the scope of the Full Bench decision of this Court, reported in ,I.T. C. Pazhanimala and others v. State of Kerala and others 1968 K.L.T. 652 and the observations of the Supreme Court already referred to above. 5. There is also substance in the further objection raised on the side of the respondents that the action complained against is purely administrative in character and is not justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Admittedly, the District Collector was not discharging any statutory function in choosing the site for locating the Sub Centre. It is perfectly open to the Government or to the competent officer authorised by it to decide in their discretion where a particular public institution should be located and the propriety or correctness of the view taken by them cannot be gone into by this Court in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. On the merits also, I find that there is little substance in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the choice of Sy. No. 280/5 has been made arbitrarily without due advertance to all the relevant aspects. 6. On the merits also, I find that there is little substance in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that the choice of Sy. No. 280/5 has been made arbitrarily without due advertance to all the relevant aspects. Great stress was laid by counsel on the fact that at an earlier stage the then Medical Officer in charge of Family Planning who had visited the said site had raised certain objections regarding its suitability for locating the Sub Centre. From the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent it is however seen that the alternate plot offered by the petitioner was inspected by the Block Development Officer and it was found to be a water- logged area unsuitable for the construction of any permanent building. It is stated that excepting for an extent of three cents of raised land, the rest of the said plot was found to be submerged under water to a depth of three feet to six feet and that therefore it was found to be totally unfit for the purpose of locating the Health Centre. In the light of this report, it would appear that the Chairman of the Block Development Committee represented to the State Government that the construction of the building may be effected at the site originally suggested by the Panchayat since the matter was already very much delayed. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that thereupon the Government on 28th January 1971 issued directions to the District Collector, Alleppey to conduct an inspection of both the sites jointly with the District Medical Officer and to select whichever was found to be more suitable. Pursuant thereto a joint inspection was conducted by the two officers on 7th February 1971 and as a result thereof they came to the conclusion that the plot in Sy. No. 280/5 suggested by the Panchayat is more suitable to put up the Family Planning Centre and accordingly fixed up the said site as authorised by the Government. A copy of the minutes of the inspection prepared by the Collector and by the District Medical Officer jointly has been produced along with the counter-affidavit and marked as Ext. R-1. No. 280/5 suggested by the Panchayat is more suitable to put up the Family Planning Centre and accordingly fixed up the said site as authorised by the Government. A copy of the minutes of the inspection prepared by the Collector and by the District Medical Officer jointly has been produced along with the counter-affidavit and marked as Ext. R-1. A perusal of the said document shows that the decision has been taken by the said officers only after adverting to various factors which are germane in deciding about the suitability of the sites in question for locating the Family Planning Centre. Whereas at the time of the previous inspection of the site by the then Medical Officer in charge of Family Planning there was no water-supply facility available, that handicap was no longer in existence at the time of the joint inspection conducted by the Collector and the District Medical Officer in February 1971 since, by then, work on the rural water-supply scheme had been completed and it was about to be commissioned ensuring plentiful supply of drinking water at the site. 7. The aforesaid averments in the counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent are fully borne out by the recitals in Ext. R1 and I do not see any reason not to accept those statements as true. It is therefore clear that there is no basis for the petitioner's allegation that the impugned decision was taken by the District Collector arbitrarily or on extraneous considerations. 8. Though there is a vague allegation of mala fides, there is absolutely no material whatever to substantiate the same. 9. In the result the original petition fails and is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.