Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 341 (HP)

Residents of Rajhoon v. State of H. P.

2015-04-16

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to shift all the institutions/offices/banks situated at Gadiyara to Gram Panchayat Rajhoon and further also sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make the said institutions functional at Gram Panchayat Rajhoon, like they were functioning at Gadiyara. 2. It is moot question whether the writ petition is maintainable. The petitioner is seeking the relief which is the domain of the Legislature and not of this Court. The Court cannot sit in appeal and examine correctness of policy decision. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhubaneswar Development Authority and another versus Adikanda Biswal and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 731 has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the judgment (supra) herein: “10. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logic. The principle of reasonableness and non arbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Reference in this regard can also be made to Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal [ (2000) 8 SCC 262 : (AIR 2000 SC3313)].” 3. This Court in the cases titled as Nand Lal & another versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No. 621 of 2014; Sher Singh versus State of H. P. & others, being CWP No. 7115 of 2013 and Gurbachan versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No. 4625 of 2012 has also laid down the same proposition of law. 4. Having said so, the writ petition is dismissed in limine being not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy. 5. Pending CMPs, if any, also stand disposed of.