Judgment : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. These writ petitions (PIL) have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs: Writ Petition No. 2639/2025 “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction; (i) The respondents may kindly be restrained from constructing the Sub District Hospital, Bhadra at Patwar Halka Ramgadiya, Jogiwala, Bhadra. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to demolish the old CHC, Bhadra and construct the new Sub District Hospital at that place only in pursuance of the work order (Annex.4). (iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Costs of the Writ Petition may kindly be awarded to the Petitioner.” Writ Petition No.3758/2025 “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the communication dated 07.01.2025 (Annex.16) may kindly be declared highly arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to construct the new building for Sub District Hospital, Bhadra District Hanumangarh over the land of Khasra No.139/117 measuring 3.036 hectares allotted by the District Collector vide order dated 19.12.2024. (c) The respondent authorities may kindly be restrained from constructing the new building of Sub District Hospital at the present land of CHC as well as the land of Square No.57 of Chak 10 Barani gifted by the private persons. (d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (e) Writ Petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.” Writ Petition No. 12021/2025 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and the Hon’ble Court may be pleased by an appropriate writ, order or direction: A/ The respondent State authorities may kindly be directed to construct and established the sub district hospital, Bhadra as per the mandate of master plan 2010- 31 and the land which is already earmarked in the master plan notification dated 31.05.2012 of Town Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. B/ That the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annex.-9) passed the District Collector Hanumangarh for allotment the land at Village Dhani Khokhran, Tehsil Bhadra, as well as the order dated 07.01.2025 (Annex-11) passed by the District Collector Hanumangarh for construction of the Sub District Hospital Bhadra upon the 16000 sq. mtrs may kindly be quashed and set aside. C/ The Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to ensure the compliance of the circular dated 04.08.2022 (Annex-8) issued by the Department of Medical and Health, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and ensure the construction of the building of the Sub District Hospital, Bhadra upon the land with the minimum requirement of the 28500 sq. mtrs area which is already reserved in the master plan as 8.8 acre. D/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. E/ Writ Petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” Writ Petition No. 15450/2025 “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: (a) That the impugned communication dated 07.01.2025 may kindly be declared highly arbitrary, unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) The respondent authorities may kindly be restrained from constructing the new building of Sub District Hospital on land mentioned in communication dated 07.01.2025 as donation and registry was done in violation of law and same was invalid (c) The respondent authorities may kindly be restrained from constructing the new building of Sub District Hospital on the murba No.57 Chak 10 barani in 2/4, 3/3, 8/2, 13/2, 3/6, 4/3, 5/6, 6/2, 67, 8/1, 13/14 & 15/1 total 13 rakba 1.3024 Hectare gifted by private persons. (d) That the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 may kindly be quashed and set aside as same violation of master plan, (e) That the respondents may kindly be directed to construct the hospital according to the master 2010-31, (f) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (g) Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2. (g) Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2. The principal issue arising for consideration in this batch of writ petitions pertains to a common grievance regarding the determination of the site for establishment and construction of the Sub-District Hospital (SDH) at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. The petitioners have impugned the administrative decision of the State Government whereby the proposed hospital is sought to be constructed upon privately gifted/donated land in substitution of the government land earlier identified for the said purpose. 2.1. Since all the petitions involve the same factual background and legal questions, they are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that by order dated 19.12.2024, the District Collector, Hanumangarh allotted government land bearing Khasra No. 139/117, Village Dhani Khokharan, admeasuring 3.036 hectares (approx. 8 bighas 12 biswas), for establishment of a Sub-District Hospital under the Medical & Health Department. 3.1. Subsequently, private individuals, namely Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Chand Lal Beniwal, Shri Suresh Kumar S/o Chand Lal Beniwal and Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Suresh Kumar Beniwal, voluntarily gifted to the State land comprising Khasra Nos. 382 to 386, Square No. 57, Chak 10 Barani (Mitasar South), measuring 5 bighas 7 biswas (approximately 13,800 sq. m), by a registered gift-deed dated 02.01.2025 for construction of the same hospital. Acting upon the said deed, the State issued a communication dated 07.01.2025 deciding to shift the hospital site from the government land to the donated parcel. 3.2. This change of location forms the central subject of challenge in the present writ petitions. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced elaborate submissions assailing the decision of the State Government dated 07.01.2025, whereby the proposed site of the Sub-District Hospital (SDH) at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, was shifted from the earlier government land to a parcel of privately gifted/donated land. 4.1. In Writ Petition No.2639/2025, Mr. Manjeet Godra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the writ petition raises two principal issues. Firstly, it was contended that the existing Community Health Centre (CHC), Bhadra, being situated at a centralized location within the town, ought to have been upgraded and converted into the Sub-District Hospital, as such conversion would ensure better accessibility and convenience for the general public. Firstly, it was contended that the existing Community Health Centre (CHC), Bhadra, being situated at a centralized location within the town, ought to have been upgraded and converted into the Sub-District Hospital, as such conversion would ensure better accessibility and convenience for the general public. Secondly, it was urged that substantial public infrastructure and medical resources already exist at the CHC, which, if suitably utilized, would enable the State to establish the Sub-District Hospital without incurring fresh and avoidable expenditure. It was further submitted that the existing CHC premises are structurally amenable to refitting and expansion, and therefore, constructing a new building on a different site would not serve the purpose of prudent utilization of public resources. Learned counsel thus argued that the proposal to establish a new hospital on an entirely different parcel of land amounts to an unwarranted and uneconomical diversion of public funds. 4.2. In Writ Petition No.3758/2025, Mr. R. S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Sub-District Hospital ought to be constructed upon the government land bearing Khasra No.139/117, situated at Village Dhani Khokharan, Tehsil Bhadra, which had already been allotted in favour of the Medical and Health Department by the District Collector, Hanumangarh, vide order dated 19.12.2024. It was contended that the said government land, measuring approximately 8 bighas and 12 biswas, is adequate in area, centrally situated with respect to adjoining government offices, and suitable for future expansion of the medical facility. Learned counsel urged that the private donated land, comprising Khasra Nos.382 to 386, Square No.57, Chak 10 Barani (Mitasar South), measuring only about 5 bighas and 7 biswas, is inadequate in size and unsuitable for establishing a fully equipped Sub-District Hospital. It was submitted that the surrounding area of the earlier government site already houses several government establishments, thereby making it an ideal and coordinated location for a public hospital. However, for political and extraneous reasons, the government shifted the project to the private parcel, which, according to the petitioners, is an arbitrary and prejudicial act against the larger public interest. 4.2.1. It was further contended that the communication dated 07.01.2025, through which the location was changed, is vitiated by mala fides and non-application of mind. Since sufficient government land was already available, there was no justification to accept private donated land for a public project of this magnitude. 4.2.1. It was further contended that the communication dated 07.01.2025, through which the location was changed, is vitiated by mala fides and non-application of mind. Since sufficient government land was already available, there was no justification to accept private donated land for a public project of this magnitude. Learned counsel also questioned the fairness and legality of the donation, asserting that the terms and conditions of the gift deed are arbitrary and may not be conducive to establishing a government hospital, as they could potentially create administrative or ownership complications in future. It was submitted that a public hospital must stand on government-owned land to ensure absolute title and unfettered control of the State. 4.3. In Writ Petition No.12021/2025, Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Master Plan 2010– 2031 of Bhadra, notified on 31.05.2012, has statutory force under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, and mandates that all public developments must strictly conform to its zoning regulations. It was pointed out that the minimum land requirement for a Sub-District Hospital, as per the master plan, is 28,500 square metres (8.8 acres), which had been duly reserved for medical use. The earlier government site allotted vide order dated 19.12.2024 fully satisfied this requirement, whereas the donated land, being only about 13,800 square metres, falls significantly short of the prescribed area, rendering the decision contrary to the master plan. Learned counsel further contended that any deviation from the master plan without following due statutory procedure and public notice under Section 23 -A of the Act is impermissible. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) No.1554/2004, decided on 12.01.2017), wherein it was held that the master plan is a binding statutory document, and no administrative authority can alter or override it without due process of law. 4.4. In Writ Petition No.15450/2025, Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterated that the change of location of the Sub-District Hospital vide communication dated 07.01.2025 is contrary to law, public interest, and planning discipline. It was submitted that strict adherence to the master plan is essential to ensure equitable urban development and sustainable infrastructure planning. 4.4. In Writ Petition No.15450/2025, Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterated that the change of location of the Sub-District Hospital vide communication dated 07.01.2025 is contrary to law, public interest, and planning discipline. It was submitted that strict adherence to the master plan is essential to ensure equitable urban development and sustainable infrastructure planning. It was further contended that the private donated site, being of smaller dimensions and limited access, is not conducive to efficient public healthcare operations and would impede future expansion and accessibility for the residents of Bhadra and surrounding villages. 5. Per contra, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Aditi Sharma, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, opposed the writ petitions and supported the impugned decision dated 07.01.2025, whereby the State Government decided to establish the Sub-District Hospital (SDH) at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, on privately gifted/donated land. 5.1. Learned AAG submitted that the private donors, have voluntarily gifted land comprising Khasra Nos. 382 to 386, forming part of Square No.57, Chak 10 Barani (Mitasar South), measuring about 5 bighas and 7 biswas (approximately 13,800 sq. metres), through a registered gift deed dated 02.01.2025, for construction of the Sub-District Hospital. It was submitted that the said land is ideally suited in terms of location, accessibility, and planning parameters, being only 1.6 kilometres from the Bhadra Bus Stand, 900 metres from Vishwakarma Circle, and approximately 300 metres from National Highway No.62 (Bhadra–Nohar Road). The approach road is 60 feet wide, which is sufficient to handle ingress and egress of hospital traffic. Learned AAG emphasized that the location falls within the core population zone of Bhadra town, ensuring that the proposed hospital remains easily accessible to citizens of the town as well as the adjoining rural areas. 5.2. It was further contended that the national highway adjacent to the site does not carry heavy traffic density, and since the proposed location is set back by about 300 metres from the highway, the same would not pose any risk to patients or impede vehicular access. The learned AAG submitted that all technical and physical parameters for the hospital have been duly assessed by the Medical and Health Department and the Public Works Department, and the selected site was found more suitable and feasible than the earlier government land allotted under order dated 19.12.2024. The learned AAG submitted that all technical and physical parameters for the hospital have been duly assessed by the Medical and Health Department and the Public Works Department, and the selected site was found more suitable and feasible than the earlier government land allotted under order dated 19.12.2024. It was argued that the size, topography, and accessibility of the donated land make it conducive for immediate construction and operational efficiency, and therefore, the decision does not suffer from any infirmity. 5.3. The learned AAG submitted that all technical and physical parameters for the hospital have been duly assessed by the Medical and Health Department and the Public Works Department, and the selected site was found more suitable and feasible than the earlier government land allotted under order dated 19.12.2024. It was argued that the size, topography, and accessibility of the donated land make it conducive for immediate construction and operational efficiency, and therefore, the decision does not suffer from any infirmity. 5.4. As regards the contention of the petitioners relating to the existing Community Health Centre (CHC), Bhadra, learned AAG submitted that the CHC shall continue to function independently and that the State has no intention to close or merge the same. It was assured that the CHC infrastructure will be used to augment and complement existing medical services, but not to substitute the proposed Sub-District Hospital. Learned AAG submitted that converting the CHC into an SDH would have been counterproductive, as it would restrict healthcare facilities to the old parameters and deprive citizens of the additional services and infrastructure mandated under the Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS) for a Sub-District Hospital. 5.5. Dealing with the argument on violation of the Master Plan 2010–2031, learned AAG submitted that the donated land falls within the Peripheral Control Zone, where the construction of public utilities is expressly permissible in terms of Condition No.14 of the State Notification dated 14.10.2024, which was issued under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The said condition provides that public utilities such as hospitals, schools, and other government establishments may be constructed in the peripheral zone subject to environmental safeguards and conformity with layout regulations. Hence, the proposed construction is in complete consonance with the planning norms and statutory framework. 5.6. The said condition provides that public utilities such as hospitals, schools, and other government establishments may be constructed in the peripheral zone subject to environmental safeguards and conformity with layout regulations. Hence, the proposed construction is in complete consonance with the planning norms and statutory framework. 5.6. Learned AAG further submitted that the building design and site plan of the proposed hospital conform fully to the Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS), and the land area of approximately 13,800 square metres is well within the prescribed norms for a Sub-District Hospital of 100-bed capacity, which, under the IPHS 2022 guidelines, requires between 12,000 to 14,000 square metres. In support, it was pointed out that the Sub-District Hospital constructed at Mandawari, Dausa, occupies only 15,000 square feet, which is significantly lesser than the land available at the Bhadra site, thereby demonstrating that adequate space is available for the proposed project. 5.6.1. It was contended that the gifted land stands verified by the District Collector, Hanumangarh, as free from all encumbrances or litigation, and the registered gift deed dated 02.01.2025 conveys absolute title to the State Government without any restrictive or reversionary conditions. The civil suit cited by the petitioners has already been withdrawn, and thus no dispute remains pending. 5.7. Learned AAG lastly placed reliance upon paragraph 205(vii) of the judgment in Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) No.1554/2004, decided on 12.01.2017), wherein this Court held that construction of public utility structures, including hospitals, is permissible in the peripheral control area when undertaken in larger public interest and in consultation with the competent planning authority. It was submitted that the present project falls squarely within this exception, being a public health initiative of considerable importance, and any interference at this stage would cause serious prejudice to public welfare and delay the establishment of vital medical infrastructure at Bhadra. 5.8. Summarising his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the decision of the State Government is based on due administrative consideration, supported by technical evaluation, and is neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The site selection is in conformity with the planning norms, statutory provisions, and IPHS guidelines, and the donated land, being centrally located and accessible, is most suitable for the establishment of the Sub-District Hospital. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. 6. The site selection is in conformity with the planning norms, statutory provisions, and IPHS guidelines, and the donated land, being centrally located and accessible, is most suitable for the establishment of the Sub-District Hospital. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, be dismissed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the material available on record, including the orders dated 19.12.2024, 02.01.2025 and 07.01.2025, the Master Plan 2010-2031, the Notification 14.10.2024 (Annexure-R/16) and also the judgment rendered in Gulab Kothari, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) No.1554/2004, decided on 12.01.2017), this Court finds that broadly the following issues arise for consideration in the present batch of writ petitions: (a) Whether the old existing Community Health Centre (CHC), Bhadra, should have been utilized or upgraded for construction of the Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. (b) Whether the new proposed gifted/donated site is in accordance with the Master Plan 2010–2031 of Bhadra town. (c) Whether the site earlier allotted by the District Collector vide order dated 19.12.2024 (government land) or the newly selected site approved vide order dated 07.01.2025 (private gifted/donated land) is more appropriate and suitable for the future needs of the Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra. (d) Whether the ratio laid down in Gulab Kothari (supra) regarding construction in the peripheral control belt applies to the present case. (e) Whether there exists any other legal or factual impediment to the establishment of the Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra. 7. After carefully considering the rival submissions and examining the record, this Court is of the view that judicial interference in policy or administrative decisions relating to public infrastructure projects, such as the establishment of a Sub-District Hospital, must be limited to instances of manifest illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of statutory provisions. The Court does not act as an appellate authority to substitute its own opinion for that of the competent administrative agency, unless the decision is so unreasonable that no prudent authority would have taken it. 8. In the present case, the record demonstrates that the private gifted/donated land, comprising Khasra Nos.382 to 386, Square No.57, Chak 10 Barani (Mitasar South), measuring about 5 bighas and 7 biswas (approximately 13,800 sq. metres), was offered through a registered gift deed dated 02.01.2025. 8. In the present case, the record demonstrates that the private gifted/donated land, comprising Khasra Nos.382 to 386, Square No.57, Chak 10 Barani (Mitasar South), measuring about 5 bighas and 7 biswas (approximately 13,800 sq. metres), was offered through a registered gift deed dated 02.01.2025. The site is situated 1.6 kilometres from the Bhadra Bus Stand, 900 metres from Vishwakarma Circle, and about 300 metres from National Highway No.62, and is connected by a 60-foot-wide approach road. The technical inspection reports on record confirm that the land satisfies the Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS 2022), which prescribe approximately 12,000–14,000 sq. metres for a Sub-District Hospital of 100-bed capacity. The location is thus both accessible and compliant with the prescribed parameters. 8.1. As regards the argument that the existing CHC should have been upgraded to a Sub-District Hospital, the Court notes that while the CHC is centrally located, no material or technical report has been placed on record to demonstrate that it meets the requisite IPHS standards, or that it can be structurally refitted to accommodate the larger infrastructural and service requirements of a Sub-District Hospital. The State has assured that the CHC will continue to function independently and its resources will be enhanced for primary healthcare needs. The Court finds merit in the State’s position that converting the CHC into the SDH would restrict the scope of healthcare services and diminish the availability of dual medical facilities within the region. 9. It is also evident from the record that the site earlier allotted by the District Collector on 19.12.2024, located at Village Dhani Khokharan (Khasra No.139/117), is larger in dimension (approximately 8 bighas 12 biswas) but situated about 7 kilometres away from the core town of Bhadra, outside the main habitation area. The newly proposed site, on the other hand, lies approximately 1.6 kilometres from the main bus stand and 900 metres from Vishwakarma Circle, and is therefore more accessible to the core population. For a medical facility intended to serve the urban and semi-urban residents of Bhadra, accessibility assumes greater significance than mere size. Hence, the present location, though smaller, is more appropriate in terms of public convenience, proximity, and immediate utility. 10. On the question of conformity with the Master Plan 2010– 2031, this Court finds that the donated site falls within the Peripheral Control Zone of Bhadra. Hence, the present location, though smaller, is more appropriate in terms of public convenience, proximity, and immediate utility. 10. On the question of conformity with the Master Plan 2010– 2031, this Court finds that the donated site falls within the Peripheral Control Zone of Bhadra. However, as per Condition No.14 of the State Notification dated 14.10.2024 (Annexure-R/16), construction of public utilities, including hospitals, schools, and other government establishments, is permissible within the peripheral control area when justified by planning authorities in the larger public interest. The record contains no objection from the planning authority or the Urban Improvement Trust. Therefore, the construction of the Sub-District Hospital at the donated site cannot be said to be contrary to the Master Plan, particularly when the State has acted within the ambit of a statutory notification permitting such development. 11. This Court observes that the reliance placed by the petitioners on Gulab Kothari (supra) is misplaced. The said judgment, while affirming the binding nature of master plans, also carves out an exception, as seen in paragraph 205(vii), allowing for construction of public utilities in peripheral control belts where such activity is approved by planning authorities and serves the larger public good. The present case clearly falls within this exception. The competent authorities have assessed the location and found it suitable for the intended purpose. Accordingly, the reliance on Gulab Kothari (supra) does not render the impugned decision illegal. The re-fitting issue as raised on behalf of the petitioners is not creating any negative implications as per the record. 12. The Court further observes that the gifted/donated land is free from encumbrances and litigation, and that the registered gift deed dated 02.01.2025 conveys absolute ownership to the State Government without any reversionary or conditional clauses. The allegations of mala fides or political influence raised by the petitioners are not supported by any cogent material on record. The decision to shift the hospital site appears to have been taken after due deliberation and upon consideration of technical and logistical factors. The plea of arbitrariness or lack of bona fides, therefore, does not withstand judicial scrutiny. 13. Insofar as the argument regarding environmental and regulatory compliance is concerned, the State has undertaken that all statutory approvals, including building and layout clearances, shall be obtained prior to commencement of major construction work. 14. The plea of arbitrariness or lack of bona fides, therefore, does not withstand judicial scrutiny. 13. Insofar as the argument regarding environmental and regulatory compliance is concerned, the State has undertaken that all statutory approvals, including building and layout clearances, shall be obtained prior to commencement of major construction work. 14. This Court is of the opinion that the Sub-District Hospital project at Bhadra represents a matter of public importance. Any delay in its establishment would cause prejudice to the health and welfare of the residents of the region. The approach adopted by the State, to retain the CHC as a continuing facility while constructing a new Sub-District Hospital at a more accessible location, would result in augmentation of medical infrastructure, not duplication or reduction of services. The project thus advances the State’s obligations under Article 47 of the Constitution and the fundamental right to health implicit under Article 21. 15. In view of the foregoing analysis and keeping in mind the larger public interest, this Court finds that the decision of the State Government dated 07.01.2025 cannot be said to be arbitrary, unlawful, or violative of any statutory provision. The donated site, being centrally located, accessible, and compliant with IPHS and planning parameters, is appropriate for construction of the Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra, District Hanumangarh. The reliance placed on Gulab Kothari (supra) by the petitioners is misconceived, as the said decision itself recognizes the permissibility of public projects in peripheral control zones when undertaken for the larger public good. 16. Accordingly, and in the larger interest of justice and public welfare, the instant writ petitions are dismissed with liberty to the State Government to continue with the construction of the Sub-District Hospital at Bhadra on the gifted/donated land (Khasra Nos.382 to 386, Square No.57, Chak 10 Barani, Mitasar South). The State shall ensure expeditious completion of the project and continued functioning of the existing CHC as an independent healthcare facility. All pending applications stand disposed of.