Judgment : Andhra Pradesh Labour Law Practitioners Association filed the instant writ petition seeking invalidation of the proceedings bearing No.E/13434/2008, dated 04.11.2008, issued by the Commissioner of Labour, as irrational and arbitrary. By the said proceedings it was ordered to shift the Offices of (i) Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad, (ii) Assistant Commissioner of Labour -I, Hyderabad, (iii) Assistant Commissioner of Labour - II, Hyderabad, (iv) Assistant Labour Officers Circle No.14, 18 etc., and (v) Assistant Labour Officers Circle No.10, 15 etc., (hereafter, Labour Offices) from present premises at T.Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC "X" Roads, to Labour Welfare Centre, Sanathnagar, and two of them to Labour Welfare Centre, Sitaphalmandi in Hyderabad city itself. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, and Assistant Commissioner of Labour are entrusted with the functions of enforcing and regulating the various labour laws like payment of Wages Act, 1936, Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Cine-Workers And Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation Of Employment) Act, 1981, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, Beedi & Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, etc. All these Officials also have quasi judicial powers by virtue of various notifications issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh under Labour Welfare Enactments. Prior to 1992 their Offices were situated at various places in the twin cities of Hyderabad. It is alleged that there was a demand by those concerned like workmen, trade union leaders and Advocates to locate all the Offices at one place for the sake of convenience. Therefore, the Government constructed Office complex "T.Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan" (Karmika Bhavan) at RTC "X" Roads, Hyderabad. It is alleged that Karmika Bhavan was constructed with the financial support from the labour welfare fund collected from the employers and workmen under the Andhra Pradesh Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1987. There is also a demand for shifting of the Labour Courts to Karmika Bhavan. It is also alleged that various offices in the Labour Department take up adjudication work in the afternoon for convenience of union leaders, employees and Advocates. This has been very convenient to all of them. There is also a demand for shifting of the Labour Courts to Karmika Bhavan. It is also alleged that various offices in the Labour Department take up adjudication work in the afternoon for convenience of union leaders, employees and Advocates. This has been very convenient to all of them. On 04.11.2008, third respondent submitted proposals to second respondent requesting for relocation of Labour Offices. Accepting the proposal, second respondent issued the impugned proceedings for shifting the Offices as follows: TABLE This Court while ordering notice before admission passed orders directing second respondent to continue the Offices (proposed to be shifted) at Karmika Bhavan until further orders. When respondents moved W.V.M.P.No.3956 of 2008 duly filing the counter affidavit, having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, the matter is heard finally, and is being disposed of by this order. The contentions of the counter affidavit in brief may be noticed as follows. Karmika Bhavan was constructed by the Andhra Pradesh Labour Welfare Board. Second respondent is paying rents to the Welfare Board. Consequent on the restructure of the Labour Department vide G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 01.06.2005, proceedings dated 23.05.2008 were issued realigning jurisdictions of various Officers of Hyderabad. Keeping this in view, the Offices of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I and II are relocated in the respective jurisdictions due to the following reasons. i) Convenience to large number of workers covered under various labour laws, trade unions, employers and other public representatives in respective territorial jurisdictions. ii) Convenience to administration to discharge their duties and responsibilities in terms of transport and management. iii) Avoiding confusion to the public in identifying the Offices for redressal of their grievances in the cluster of entire Offices complex. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that locating all Labour Offices of quasi judicial/administrative authorities in Labour Department at one place is convenient to various stake players in the administration of labour laws. There was no request from the workers or employers for relocating the Offices, and therefore, impugned exercise by second respondent is irrational. The scope of judicial review in matters, which are purely administrative and lie within the executive prerogative, is very limited. Only on the ground of mala fide exercise of administrative power, such decisions can be reviewed. There was no request from the workers or employers for relocating the Offices, and therefore, impugned exercise by second respondent is irrational. The scope of judicial review in matters, which are purely administrative and lie within the executive prerogative, is very limited. Only on the ground of mala fide exercise of administrative power, such decisions can be reviewed. The decision of Executive locating the Headquarters of geographical administrative units, like Offices of Panchayats, establishment of schools lack adjudicative disposition. The decisions of the Executive in such matters are not justiciable. In J.R.Raghupathy v. State of A.P. AIR 1988 SC 1681 = (1988) 4 SCC 364 , the Supreme Court laid down that such decisions are not amenable to judicial review, as they would not give rise to any legal right in favour of an aggrieved. It was held as under. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the Gram Panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place 'X' rather than place 'Y' as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners. In A.P.Residential School (Girls) Parents Association v A.P.Residential School (Girls) 2000 (5) ALT 155 this Court held that High Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of administrative authorities for shifting of residential school from one place to another. Referring to an unreported judgment, this Court observed as under. 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. 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. 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..." In Vemula Rajamouli v State of A.P 2002 (2) ALD 424 (DB) the order of the Government converting the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, as a regular Court of Junior Civil Judge and shifting the same from Manthani to Godavarikhani, was challenged as arbitrary and illegal. Inter alia, it was contended that shifting of the Court would cause inconvenience and hardship. While upholding decision, the Division Bench of this Court rejected the plea and observed as under. ...It is true that by shifting the Court from one place to another, people of one area may be affected. But that cannot, in our opinion, stand in the way of Government issuing the GO when it is required to shift the Court in larger public interest on the basis of the recommendations of the High Court. As already observed, by shifting the Court to Godavarikhani, the proper litigants residing in Godavarikhani and Ramagundam and also the people residing in the nearby Mandals will be benefited. As already observed, by shifting the Court to Godavarikhani, the proper litigants residing in Godavarikhani and Ramagundam and also the people residing in the nearby Mandals will be benefited. The inconvenience or grievance of a few residing in the mandals of Kalva Srirampur and Julapalli is only imaginary in nature and cannot be a ground to quash the GO. Thus, it may be taken as well settled that the decisions of the executive with regard to establishment of Offices or shifting of Offices from one place to another are not justiciable. Convenience of the Advocates or litigants can never be a ground for undoing an executive action, which is presumably taken keeping in view easy access to administration. In the letter dated 04.11.2008 third respondent in justification of the proposal mentioned as under. The jurisdiction of twin cities zone comprises of Hyderabad (twin cities) and adjacent 4 Municipalities (Alwal, Malkajgiri, Kukatpally & Uppal). While so, the workers and employers located in Kukatpally, Alwal, Malkajgiri and Uppal Municipalities are facing difficulties in approaching the officials located in T.Anjaiah Karmika Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad due to long distance and traffic problems. In the interest of public to facilitate the workers and the employers to have easy access to various officers, certain offices may be relocated and the following offices of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Assistant Commissioners of Labour and Assistant Labour Officers along with their staff may be relocated... The impugned decision of the second respondent is thus supported by valid reasons. The petitioner has failed to show any irregularity in the same. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. The interim order shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.