Jharkhand High Court
Ram Pravesh Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 5 June, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:14488-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 2321 of 2024
1. Ram Pravesh Yadav, aged about 61 years, son of Tula Yadav,
resident of Turi (Barwadohri) P.O. Kurhat Kataiya, P.S.
Hariharganj, District Palamau.
2. Ram Jatan Yadav, aged about 70 years, son of Saryu Yadav,
resident of Village - Turi, P.O. & P.S. Hariharganj, District -
Palamau.
3. Amresh Yadav aged about 50 years, son of Baburam Yadav,
resident of Village - Tetariya, P.O. Kataiya, P.S. - Hariharganj,
District - Palamau. ... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of
Panchahayati Raj, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. -Daltonganj,
District - Palamau.
3. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, Medinigar, Palamu, P.O. & P.S. -
Daltonganj, District - Palamau.
4. The Circle Officer, Hariharganj, P.O. & P.S. Hariharganj, District
- Palamau. ... ... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.II
---------
Reserved on: 07.05.2025 Pronounced on: 5/06/2025
Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.
1) In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have
challenged the actions of the respondents in selecting a
particular site for construction of Panchayat Sachiwalay Building,
Turi, Hariharganj in District Palamau on the ground that the site
for construction of the said building is not geographically or
topographically suitable for construction of the same because it
is surrounded by raiyati plots of several villagers, that there
would be difficulties in the ingress and outgress of the public at
-1 of 5-
2025:JHHC:14488-DB
large, and it would not serve the purpose of providing the
facilities, and the objects sought to be achieved from the
building, in question, will not be achieved.
2) In the counter-affidavit filed by the Circle Officer,
Hariharganj, Palamau on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 it is
contended that the selection of the site was done by the Circle
Officer and various parameters such as undisputed vacant
Government land, approach road and other factors like
availability of electricity, drinking water etc. were kept in mind for
selecting the site in question at Khata No. 149, Plot no. 678
Rakba 18.5 decimals through a letter no. 34 dt. 16.01.2024.
3) It is stated that after the writ petition was filed there was a
re-verification done pursuant to a letter dt. 16.07.2024 received
by the Circle Officer, Hariharganj to re-verify the site keeping in
mind the objections raised by the petitioners. It is stated that he
re-verified the site and reported on 20.07.2024 that the approach
road to the Panchayat Bhawan is available and there is no
difficulty to reach the Panchayat Bhawan, Turi.
4) It is also stated that construction of the Panchayat Bhawan
is under process and completed up to lintel level as on
02.05.2025, the date on which the counter-affidavit was filed.
5) Thus, according to the respondents, there is no difficulty to
any public to reach the Panchayat Bhawan, Turi at the site where
it is being built.
-2 of 5-
2025:JHHC:14488-DB
6) The counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel
appearing for the respondents reiterated their respective stands.
7) The question arises as to "whether in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this
Court can interfere with the decision taken by the respondents
for location of the Panchayat Sachiwalay Bhawan or not?"
8) Counsel for the petitioners is unable to cite any judgment in
support of his plea that matters of this nature are within the
purview of the High Court, and that in exercise of its powers
under Article 226 of Constitution of India, this Court can interfere
with such decisions taken by the respondents.
9) We may also point out that the Supreme Court in J.R.
Raghupati Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1, was considering a
similar question about the location of Mandal Headquarters
notified under the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act,
1974.
In that case, it was contended that the location of
Mandal Headquarters was in violation of certain guidelines
framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the
location of the Mandal Headquarters by the respondents ought to
be changed by new place.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court which had
interfered with the said decision of the respondents had acted
erroneously because it had failed to appreciate that the
(1988) 4 SCC 364
-3 of 5-
2025:JHHC:14488-DB
guidelines issued by State Government have no statutory force
and they are merely in the nature of executive instructions for the
guidance of the Collectors.
It held that the ultimate decision as to the place of
location of the Mandal Headquarters was for the Government to
take and it cannot be said that such decision for location of
Mandal Headquarters was mala-fide or in bad faith or that it
proceeded on extraneous considerations. It also held that such a
decision cannot be said to be arbitrary.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no
jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the State
Government to locate Mandal Headquarters at a particular place
particularly, since the decision to locate such Headquarters at a
particular village is dependent upon various factors, and the High
Court cannot evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a
particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal
Headquarters. It also held that the High Court had no power to
direct the shifting of such Mandal Headquarters to a particular
place.
10) This principle was also reiterated by the Supreme Court in
B.N. Shankarappa Vs. Uthanur Srinivas and others2, and it
was reiterated that the ultimate decision as to the place or
location of the Mandal Headquarters is left to the Government to
decide and conferment of discretion upon the concerned
(1992) 2 SCC 61
-4 of 5-
2025:JHHC:14488-DB
authority in that behalf must necessarily leave the choice to the
discretion of the said authority and it would not be proper for the
Courts to interfere with the discretion so exercised.
11) In view of the above said settled legal position, we find no
merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed
with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the Jharkhand High Court
Legal Services Committee within 8 weeks.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
N.A.F.R.
MM
-5 of 5-
