Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 891 (UTT)

Rajendra Duklan v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-28

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayer : “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2-4 to construct the newly sanctioned four rooms away from the existing playground of Rajkiya Inter College Sakinkhet, District Pauri and to construct the same over the dilapidated two rooms away from the play ground.” 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows : (i) In Village Sakinkhet, Post Office Jhatkandi, Block Kaljikhal, District Pauri, there is a Government Inter College (from hereinafter referred to as the “said College”), which is sought to be represented by the fourth respondent-Principal. In the year 2012-2013, the Government sanctioned construction of four classrooms for the said College. The construction agency is Prantiya Khand, P.W.D., Pauri. The Principal of the said College and the construction agency have schemed to construct the four additional classrooms in the said College in part of the space earmarked for the playground of the said College. The local populace and the Parents Teachers Association and guardians are opposed to the proposed construction. They suggested construction of the said four rooms in adjacent land belonging to the said College so that the area of the playground is not reduced. (ii) Annexure No. 1 representation was made by the petitioner and many other Pradhans followed by Annexure No. 2. Annexure No. 3 purports to be the Khata Khatauni to show that the said college has ample land. The said College Management Committee unanimously passed a Resolution No. 2 dated 27.10.2016 to the effect that the newly sanctioned building be constructed where there were two dilapidated rooms, they be demolished and on that place, new rooms should be constructed. (iii) Thereafter, we notice paragraph no. 21 of the Writ Petition, wherein it is stated that this Court may graciously be pleased to restrain the respondent nos. 2 to 4 from proceeding to construct four newly sanctioned rooms adjacent to the playground of the said College. 3. We heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. 4. The purport of Public Interest Litigation is generally to secure legal and fundamental rights of the underprivileged and poorer sections. 3. We heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondents. 4. The purport of Public Interest Litigation is generally to secure legal and fundamental rights of the underprivileged and poorer sections. No doubt, it has expanded considerably today and there are various other aspects and it is for the Court to exercise a wise discretion in the matter of choice of areas, where the Court should interfere and give directions. The Court should not play the role of policy maker or issue directions as if it has taken over the reigns of administration or Government. 5. The particular site, at which the four classrooms are being constructed apparently has engaged the attention of the authorities, as it is admitted that the construction is sanctioned by the Government. Ordinarily, we see no reason to think that any such sanction would have been granted without the authorities themselves looking into it and finding out the said area to be suitable area for the construction of the new building. 6. We have noticed the case of the petitioner that the construction is being done adjacent to the playground. No doubt, Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if construction is made as suggested, both the two playgrounds, which exist, can be joined together and there will be a larger playground. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State would point out to Annexure No. 4 and would contend that the construction is being made at the place where dilapidated building earlier stood. Therefore, the decision to make use of the place, where the buildings earlier stood for the construction of newly sanctioned building cannot be said to be so perverse, in which case we may have possibly intervened. 8. In such circumstances, we see no reason to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed.