JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, ACJ. - Petitioner alleges that despite a proper survey having got conducted for establishing the new Government College at Ranital, District Kangra, H.P., Government of the day has chosen to open the same at a totally different place known as Takipur and that too without there being any proper infrastructure. Apart from this, it is in violation of the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the Education Act, 2009) and the construction carried out is against the environmental laws of the land. 2. It is a settled principle of law that unless and until action of the State is erroneous, unreasonable, irrational, thus illegal, a Constitutional Court would not interfere in quashing a policy decision. To us, the issue raised appears to be purely political in nature. Hence, such battles are best left to be fought in a totally different arena, lest allowed to be pursued by proxy litigation, for Courts cannot be a party to any decision, more so which has got political overtones. From the material so placed before us, it cannot be said that action of the State warrants interference. 3. Yes it is true, as is so admitted by the State, that a Committee of Experts did submit its report, way back in June, 2012, recommending a College should be established at Ranital, but then, as an afterthought, decision to establish the College at another place stands taken, finding the new location to be more suitable and convenient. 4. At the threshold, we may only state that the decision of the Government in opening up the college has been in great haste. There is no doubt about it. Without obtaining clearances under various environmental laws, State decided to commence construction of the college building at a new place. This was in the year, 2015. But the matter came to be filed in the Court sometime in the month of July, 2016, whereafter, State took all steps for obtaining the necessary sanctions/permissions. As is evident from the affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Page-98), the matter for obtaining the permission, under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (Hereinafter referred to as the Forest Act) is in process and is likely to be completed at the earliest. As is evident from the affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Page-98), the matter for obtaining the permission, under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (Hereinafter referred to as the Forest Act) is in process and is likely to be completed at the earliest. Orally we are informed that the Chief Secretary is himself pursuing the matter and permissions are expected to come in the near future. Ordinarily we would have stopped the construction, but refrain from doing so, for we are Orally informed that all sanctions are likely to come in the near future and positively within a period of three weeks. 5. There is yet another reason for us not to stay construction of the complex and that being, as is evident from the affidavit of the Chief Secretary, that almost 50% of the work stands completed and construction is in full swing, and vigorously attempted to be completed at the earliest. 6. Insofar as suitability, convenience and locational advantage of both the sites is concerned, we do not find action of the State, in choosing the latter to be absolutely illogical or unreasonable. Takipur is at a short distance of 5 kms from Ranital. It is well connected. It is on the highway. For any college student to travel 5 kms cannot be a cause of inconvenience. The Government has also explained that the said site was chosen keeping in view the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 1468 of 2013, titled as Dhrub Dev Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, where after guidelines dated 02.01.2014 came to be notified by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, dealing with every aspect of establishment of Government Colleges in the State. Takipur has got more feeding area of Government Senior Secondary School in the vicinity. 7. It is further argued that the decision, political in nature, is only to gain political mileage, without fulfilling statutory obligation and norms for establishing the college. 8. Well we are not inclined to accept such contention. There is no foundation to substantiate such averment. 9. Absence of any infrastructure, if any, in the new building, would still entitle the Petitioner to approach the Court and agitate the issue afresh. 10. It is not in dispute that for the present, college is being run from the premises of a Government school. 11. There is no foundation to substantiate such averment. 9. Absence of any infrastructure, if any, in the new building, would still entitle the Petitioner to approach the Court and agitate the issue afresh. 10. It is not in dispute that for the present, college is being run from the premises of a Government school. 11. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, has clarified that the college was made functional and is being run in that part of accommodation which is in excess and not required by the school. 12. Decision was taken to temporarily house the college in the school. It is not that functioning of the school is being compromised in any manner. If the school has got excess accommodation, then what is the harm in having the college run from such premises. After all children passing out from 12th standard are to take admission in the college. Transition from school to college for all adolescents would only be convenient and easy. Also, there is nothing on record to establish that today the college lacks any infrastructure. Rather than pointing out deficiencies in complying with the norms and guidelines, statutory or otherwise, Petitioner insists upon the college to be established only at Ranital, which incidently and unfortunately for them is too late in the day to urge. Recommendation to set up the college at Ranital was way back in the year, 2012 and the Petitioner approached the Court only in the year, 2016. 13. It is pointed out that premises of the school cannot be allowed to be used in view of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010. Special attention is invited to sub-rule (4) of Rule 15. This is not how we read the provisions. Any activity relating to education can be carried out in the premises of the school and higher education being such an activity, is definitely not prohibited under the Education Act. In fact it is permissible. 14. The decision of the State cannot be said to be, in any manner, illegal, arbitrary or capricious. This, as we have already observed, except for one exception and that being, starting construction without obtaining prior permission and sanctions, but then this does not itself make the action to be mala fide as is so pointed out by the Petitioner. 14. The decision of the State cannot be said to be, in any manner, illegal, arbitrary or capricious. This, as we have already observed, except for one exception and that being, starting construction without obtaining prior permission and sanctions, but then this does not itself make the action to be mala fide as is so pointed out by the Petitioner. Action can be illegal, but not mala fide and we do not find the foundation of malice, factual or otherwise, to be there on record 15. There is nothing to establish that action of the State is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Dhrub Dev Sharma (supra). 16. As such, at this point in time, we are not inclined to quash the decision of the State in establishing the college at Takipur. 17. However, we do not allow the matter to rest here and dispose of the present Petition with the following directions:- i. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, shall ensure that environmental clearances, more so, under the provisions of the Forest Act, are positively obtained within a period of four weeks from today; ii. We clarify that in the event of State failing to do so for whatever reason, all construction activity on the forest land, situate within Mauja Takipur, where building of Government Degree College is being constructed, shall be stopped forthwith; iii. The Chief Secretary shall intimate all concerned, including the Contractor about such fact; iv. The Government shall ensure establishment of infrastructure and posting of staff at both the places from where the college is being temporarily run as also in the building under construction, which eventually is to be utilized for said purpose; v. The guidelines dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Government, shall be strictly adhered to; and vi. Liberty reserved to the Petitioner to approach the Court for agitating these issues afresh, if need so arises. With the aforesaid observations, present Petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications(s), if any.