V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an association of the parents of the girls studying in Residential school established and managed by the 2nd respondent-Society. The petitioner assails the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in Rc. No. A4/145/99-2000 dated 17-2-2000 and prays for a mandamus declaring the proposal to shift the first respondent-School from Peddapuram to tuni as illegal, arbitrary and void and for a further consequential relief to direct the respondents to continue the school at peddapuram only. ( 2 ) THE 2nd respondent established residential Schools for boys and girls separately at various places. One such school was established at Kakinada. The school was later shifted during 1990-91 to peddapuram. The school is now housed in rented premises. According to the petitioner-Association, the school premises at Peddapuram has adequate infrastructural facilities. The residents spent about Rs. 5 lakhs for construction of bathrooms, kitchen, washing platforms etc. , and as such, it is alleged there is no necessity to shift the first respondent-School from Peddapuram. The petitioner- association learnt that arrangements are being made to shift the schbol to Tuni and no notice was given to the petitioner- association. The petitioner-Association came to know about the proposal when the 2nd respondent filed a caveat petition before this Court and the same was served on the petitioner on 26-3-2000. If the school is shifted now, all the 250 students studying during the academic year 1999-2000 will be forced to leave the first respondent-School after obtaining Transfer Certificates. Therefore, the shifting of the school without notice to the members of the petitioner- association is impermissible. It is also alleged that the rent at Peddapuram is rs. 5,000/- per month whereas the rent at tuni is Rs. 10,000/- per month. Further there is a sugar factory adjacent to the proposed building at Tuni, which will be detrimental to the health and safety of the students. The building is not suited and, therefore, there is no necessity to shift the school from Peddapuram to Tuni. 5,000/- per month whereas the rent at tuni is Rs. 10,000/- per month. Further there is a sugar factory adjacent to the proposed building at Tuni, which will be detrimental to the health and safety of the students. The building is not suited and, therefore, there is no necessity to shift the school from Peddapuram to Tuni. ( 3 ) THE impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent shows that the first respondent was requested to search for a suitable rented accommodation for shifting the school from Peddapuram to Tuni, that the first respondent proposed to take the house/building of one Sri Subba Rao at, tuni for locating the school on monthly rental basis and that the Deputy Executive engineer who inspected the premises submitted proposals to the District collector suggesting some alternations and renovations to the building. The District collector accepted the proposals to take the building on rent. The impugned proceedings also advises the Principal of the School to arrange for shifting of the school to Tuni after improvements and renovations are carried out as suggested by the Deputy Executive Engineer. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that for various reasons alleged in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, the shifting of the school from peddapuram to Tuni is not viable, is not congenial to the running of the school as there are no proper medical facilities and the school is adjacent to a sugar factory. ( 5 ) THE first (sic. second) respondent is the apex body to oversee the establishment and running of Residential Schools for boys, girls and schools with co-education. It is the best Judge to take a decision as to which is the proper place for running a school. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the decisions taken by the authorities duly entrusted with the task of running residential Schools. In the Judgment dated 8-11-1999 in W. P. No. 23160 of 1999 in similar circumstances dealing with the construction of a school in a village, I held as under:"there is no executive action or legislative action which cannot be said as judicially reviewable. Nevertheless judicial restraint is one aspect of judicial review, which has resulted in the jural parlance of justiciability of a particular action. Nevertheless judicial restraint is one aspect of judicial review, which has resulted in the jural parlance of justiciability of a particular action. From the days of inauguration of the power of judicial review, it has been repeatedly held in all the jurisdictions that matters concerning developmental works, war, foreign affairs are impliedly not justiciable. Apart from this, the constitution of India explicitly excludes certain areas like river water disputes, appointment to high constitutional offices and the exercise of power by high constitutional authorities as not being justiciable. Even if some of these subjects are justiciable in a petition for judicial review, the scope of justiciability is very limited. One exemption to the rule of non-justiciability is that there is a particular statutory enactment which has been violated more in breach. . . . . " ( 6 ) IN this case, except projecting the disadvantages as perceived by the members of the petitioner-Association, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to place before me any binding guidelines for establishment of schools by the respondents. Therefore, it has to be held that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons, I do not find any ground to admit the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs.