JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a registered Non Government organization (NGO), whose main object is to develop the socio-economic condition of the poor and backward people by providing sports facilities to them. The petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of the said NGO. The third petitioner is an elected ward member of the No. 51 Baghchung Charaibahi Gaon Panchayat. One organization named Kushal Konwar Path Bohagi Utsav Udjapon Samity had applied before the Land Advisory Committee for Jorhat and Titabor Sub-Divisions for allotment of a plot of Government Land measuring 2 kathas 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 9205 of Block No. 14 of Jorhat town. The said land advisory committee in its meeting held on 04.08.2005 discussed the aforesaid proposal. After discussion, the land advisory committee opined that the said plot of land should not be allotted in the name of any organization or committee and that it should be reserved for open public use. It was further opined that any organization or committee may arrange any function on that land subject to permission from the district administration. According to the petitioners, the people of the locality have been using the aforesaid plot of land for various socio-cultural and sporting activities since a long time and, therefore, they welcomed the aforesaid decision of the land advisory committee dated 04.08.2005. The petitioners claim that the said plot of land is the only open space in the entire locality covering a radius of 2/3 square kilometers. According to the petitioners, they have developed the land at a considerable cost and has held many sporting and cultural events there. After about 5 years, the Sub-divisional land advisory committee for Jorhat sadar Sub-Division in its meeting held on 28.02.2011 approved the proposal for allotment of the said land to the Jorhat Municipal Board for using the said land as a parking stand for taxi/auto van etc. subject to the condition that there cannot be any construction and the people of the locality should be allowed to use the space for holding Puja, Bihu function etc. without any charge. 2. According to the petitioners, a protest meeting was held on 22.05.2011 against the said decision. Pursuant thereto, a public petition was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat on 25.05.011 requesting the said authority to cancel the decision to allot the said land in favour of the Jorhat Municipal Board. without any charge. 2. According to the petitioners, a protest meeting was held on 22.05.2011 against the said decision. Pursuant thereto, a public petition was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat on 25.05.011 requesting the said authority to cancel the decision to allot the said land in favour of the Jorhat Municipal Board. In spite of receipt of the said public petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat had forwarded a, copy of the minutes of the meeting of the land advisory committee held on 28.2.2011 to the Jorhat Municipal Board, following which steps were taken for opening of the taxi stand in the said land allotted to the Jorhat Municipal Board. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition assailing the decision of the land advisory committee dated 28-02-2011 approving the allotment of the land in question to the Jorhat Municipal Board for use as taxi/auto van etc. parking stand. 4. The respondent No. 5 i.e. the Jorhat Municipal Board has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit, the Jorhat Municipal Board (for short 'the Board' hereafter) has stated that the land measuring 2 kathas 10 lechas covered by dag No. 920 of Jorhat town Block No. 14 is a Government land (PWD reserve) situated by the side of Jail Road in front of the Jorhat Medical College. The Board has stated that the land advisory committee did not allot the said land to the petitioners on 04-08-2005 but took the decision that any organization or committee may hold any function therein subject to obtaining due permission from the, district administration. Denying that the petitioners had invested a substantial amount of money to develop the field, the Board has stated that the local youths occasionally used the said land for celebrating Rongali Bihu festival for 3/4 days in a year after obtaining due permission of the district administration. The Board has contended that the land advisory committee rightly took the decision on 28-02-2011 approving the allotment of the land to the Board for using the same as a parking stand for taxi/auto van, magic van etc. subject to the condition that there cannot be any construction over the land and that the people of the locality be allowed to hold Puja/Bihu functions without any charge. subject to the condition that there cannot be any construction over the land and that the people of the locality be allowed to hold Puja/Bihu functions without any charge. In paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 13 of its affidavit, the Board has stated that the said land falls within the extended area of the Board and is within its jurisdiction. Considering the proximity of the land to the Jorhat Medical College, it is stated that establishment of a taxi/auto stand in the said land is in the public interest as a large number of patients visit the Jorhat Medical College Hospital everyday and therefore the said taxi stand is necessary for their conveyance. Asserting that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to cancel such allotment the Board has stated that members of the general public can also utilize the said land for holding social and cultural events without any charge. 5. The respondent No. 3 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner/Jorhat has also filed his affidavit. In his affidavit, the Deputy Commissioner has stated that no proposal whatsoever in the name of Kushal Konwar Path Kalyan Kendra i.e., the petitioner No. 1 was received for allotment of the said plot of land but a proposal was received for allotment of the said land in the name of Kushal Konwar Path Bohagi Utsav Ud-japan Samity in respect of which the land advisory committee took the decision on 04-08- 2005. The Deputy Commissioner has stated that the decision dated 28-02- 2011 is a reasonable one and the taxi stand has become necessary due to the opening of the Medical College. The Deputy Commissioner has stated that as per the land records, the said land is within the extended area of the Board and is a town land. According to the Deputy Commissioner the situation which prevailed in the year 2005 has completely changed because of the establishment of the Medical College in front of that particular land, and therefore, the said land is now required for parking of vehicles. 6. The petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit to the affidavit filed by the Board. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, have stated that the land in question does not fall within the municipal area but is situated outside the municipal area and within the jurisdiction of No. 1 Baghchung Charaibahi Gaon Panchayat. 7. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the writ petition, have stated that the land in question does not fall within the municipal area but is situated outside the municipal area and within the jurisdiction of No. 1 Baghchung Charaibahi Gaon Panchayat. 7. I have heard Mr. D.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned Govt. advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Y. Doloi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. 8. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this field has been used by the local public since a long time for holding Bihu functions, Puja etc. as well as for spurting activities. He submits that if the said land is now allowed to be used as a taxi stand, the field will be completely damaged. He further submits that since the land is within the jurisdiction of the gaon panchayat, the land advisory committee could not have allotted the land to the Board. He, therefore, prays for a positive, intervention of this Court for subserving the public good. 9. Resisting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Ghosh, the learned State Counsel submits that there is no infirmity in the decision taken on 28-02-2011. Relying on the statements made in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, Mr. Ghosh, the learned state counsel submits that the impugned decision has been taken in the public interest and it will no way prevent the members of the public from holding Pujas/Bihu'd functions in the field. 10. Mr. Y. Doloi, the learned counsel appearing for the Board questions the very maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner No. 1 is not a registered society. He also submits that no fundamental or legal rights of the petitioners have been violated and, therefore, they cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Asserting that all functions can be held in the said field, Mr. Doloi, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners cannot dictate to the authority as to how and in what manner the land is to be utilized. He asserts that the land falls within the extended area of the Board and that the land is sought to be used for a greater public good. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. He asserts that the land falls within the extended area of the Board and that the land is sought to be used for a greater public good. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. The rival submissions advanced at the Bar have received the due and anxious consideration of the Court. 12. How a vacant plot of Govt. land is to be utilized and in what manner is within the exclusive domain of the administration. The administration is the best Judge to decide as to how and in what manner such land should be utilized. Of course, while taking such decision the administration has to act in a reasonable another rational manner, keeping in mind the larger public interest Though judicial review in' such matters is not altogether ruled out the scope of interference by a writ Court is extremely limited. The writ Court will examine such decision only if it finds that the administrative authority acted in a discriminatory manner or acted in a manner not conforming to the standards of reasonableness or if the decision making process reflects lack of bonafides or if the executive authority acted contrary to the public interest. 13. In the instant case, the land in question has been allotted to the Jorhat Municipal Board to be used as a parking stand for taxis/autos/magic vans etc. Considering the close proximity of the said land to the Jorhat Medical College Hospital, the said decision cannot be said to be an unreasonable one or not in the public interest. Setting up of the taxi/auto stand on the said land would be of considerable benefit to the patients, attendants and visitors who visit the said hospital. Moreover, the authority has also kept in mind the sensitivity of the local public by making the said allotment a conditional one, the conditions being that there should not be any construction over the said land and the people of the locality should be allowed to use the same for holding puja/bihu function etc. without any charge. The contention advanced by the petitioners that the land in question is outside the limits of the Jorhat Municipal Board and is within the jurisdiction of the No. 51 Baghchung Charaibahi Gaon Panchayat does not merit much consideration in view of the categorical assertion made by the respondents that it is within the extended area of the Jorhat Municipal Board. The contention advanced by the petitioners that the land in question is outside the limits of the Jorhat Municipal Board and is within the jurisdiction of the No. 51 Baghchung Charaibahi Gaon Panchayat does not merit much consideration in view of the categorical assertion made by the respondents that it is within the extended area of the Jorhat Municipal Board. Jorhat town, like any other urban centre, is witnessing rapid growth over the years. Therefore, it cannot be said or accepted that the decision taken by the land advisory committee on 04-08-2005 should remain unchanged for all times to come. In view of the changed situation with the coming up of the Jorhat Medical College Hospital, the impugned decision to have a taxi stand near the hospital appears to be justified and in the larger public interest. Moreover, the concerned gaon panchayat is neither a party in the present proceeding nor has instituted any legal challenge to the said allotment. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the present is not a fit case to intervene by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, I decline to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, I leave the parties to bear their own cost. Petition dismissed.