JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition in public interest is filed by the petitioners seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to construct the PWD Dak Bungalow at place Sinoo of Village Sinoo Dalori of Tehsil Gandoh Bhalessa District Doda with a further prayer for restraining the respondents from shifting the site of the Dak Bungalow from Sinoo to any other place by stating that village Sinoo is situated in the centre of the area called Jatota comprising of 16 villages and the people of the said village demanded construction of PWD Dak Bungalow at place Sinoo which was accepted by the Government. The contention of the petitioners is that in place Sinoo there is head quarter of Niabat, Primary Health Center, Govt. Higher Secondary School and the Govt. Girls Middle School. Tender notice NIT No. 23 of 2010 was issued by the Public Works Department on 28.10.2010 and work was also allotted on 19.1.2011 and no progress having been made for the construction of the Dak Bungalow, one Suresh Kumar S/o. Hem Raj R/o Sinoo Dalori offered land for construction of proposed Dak Bungalow with a request to provide him job. The said application was submitted on 24.05.2014 to the Deputy Commissioner, Doda, who in turn marked the same to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gandoh for necessary action. 2. The Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his communication dated 26.05.2014 called for report from the Executive Engineer PWD (R&B) Special Sub Division Gandoh and no action having been taken, the public again made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner Doda on 06.01.2016, who in turn forwarded the same to the Executive Engineer through SDM Gandoh. 3. According to the petitioners, the Dak Bungalow proposed for Sinoo cannot be constructed at a different village namely Dalein, hence the petitioners have prayed for directions, as stated supra. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed objection stating that petitioners have suppressed and concealed the fact that the work for the construction of Dak Bungalow was sanctioned on the request of Residents of Village Sinoo made to the then R&B Minister in the year 2009 and work has already commenced in the year 2011 by leveling the ground. However, on account of paucity of funds the same came to a halt. However, on account of paucity of funds the same came to a halt. It is, further stated in the objections that demand was made by the residents of Village, Sinoo and not by the residents of Village Dalori and construction of the Dak Bungalow was permitted as per the approved plan and this writ petition is filed only to obstruct the ongoing work of construction of the Dak Bungalow at the approved site so as to accede to the demand of employing Suresh Kumar in lieu of his land, who is the relative of Petitioner No. 2 and prayer has been made for dismissing the writ petition. 5. It is seen from the records that based on the request of residents of Village Sinoo, which is annexed as annexure-R1, the then Minister PWD (R&B) on 18.12.2009 directed to prepare the DPR of Dak Bungalow at Sinoo. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer PWD (R&B) Division Gandoh Bhalessa prepared the DPR and after approval of the same, tender notice was issued in Daily Newspaper for executing the work. In the tender notice dated 28.10.2010, it is clearly stated that construction is for PWD Dak Bungalow at Sinoo (Bhalessa) at the cost of Rs. 19.42 lacs and applications are invited from the contractors of Class A, B and C. Thereafter, tender work was allotted to respondent No. 5 on 19.01.2011 for an amount of Rs. 20 lacs. The said allotment letter was issued by the Executive Engineer PWD Special Sub Division Gandoh on 19.01.2011 and work has also commenced as per the photograph attached with the reply. 6. In such circumstance the prayer made by the petitioners to construct PWD Dak Bungalow at Dalori is not maintainable as the decision was already taken to construct the PWD Dak Bungalow at Sinoo, Bhalessa and work order was also issued and part of the work was also over. 7. It is a settled proposition of law that the authorities are better persons to decide where the Dak Bungalow is to be constructed. 8. A similar issue regarding location of Head Quarter of Mandal and whether the residents have any say in the matter was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 1681 (S.R. Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) and in paragraph 30 it is held thus:- "30. 8. A similar issue regarding location of Head Quarter of Mandal and whether the residents have any say in the matter was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 1681 (S.R. Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) and in paragraph 30 it is held thus:- "30. We find it rather difficult to sustain the judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-s. (5) of S. 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 the decision reported in (2002) 10 SCC 226 (Union of India v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta and Kannadigara) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "It is not the function of the court to decide the location or the situs of the headquarters, it is the function of the Government." Similar view was taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 289 (Federation of Railway Officers Association and ors v. Union of India). In the decision reported in (2013) 0 Supreme (Mad) 569 (R. Veeramani v. State of Tamil Nadu), a Division Bench of Madras High Court refused to interfere with the policy decision of the Government to shift the State Legislative Assembly Complex and convert the said building as a Multi Super Specialty Hospital by holding that the Court cannot interfere in the policy decisions. The Special Leave Petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed. Applying the said principle to the facts of this case, we are unable to find any reason to issue any writ. The writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.