Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamlesh Chaudhary vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 August, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10359/2021
1. Kamlesh Chaudhary W/o Sagra Ram Godara, Aged About
41 Years, R/o 104 Poshal, Post Bijrad, District Barmer
(Raj.).
2. Jagmal Ram S/o Bhiya Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Poshal, Post Bijrad, District Barmer (Raj.).
3. Bhera Ram S/o Jugta Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Kharia Der, Post Bijrad, District Barmer.
4. Achala Ram S/o Shiv Dan Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Godaro Ki Dhaniya, Poshal, Post Bijrad, District Barmer.
5. Roopa S/o Pura, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Rana Tali,
Gram Panchayat Poshal, District Barmer.
6. Sona Ram S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Rana Tali, Gram Panchayat Poshal, District Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. District Collector, Barmer.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
4. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Chouhtan, District
Barmer.
5. Sub Divisional Officer, Chouhtan, District Barmer.
6. Tehsildar, Chouhtan, District Barmer.
7. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Poshal, Panchayat Samiti,
Chouhtan, District Barmer.
8. Gram Viikas Adhidari, Gram Panchayat Poshal, Panchayat
Samiti, Chohtan, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary
(2 of 4) [CW-10359/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
11/08/2021
This writ petition is preferred seeking the following reliefs:
"1. Impugned proposal No.2 and the minute
of meeting dated 05.02.2021n and letter dated
09.02.2021 (Annexure-18) and impugned order
dated 123.02.2021 (Annexure-19) may kindly
be quashed and set aside.
2. The respondents authorities be directed to
accept the offered unutilized school building and
land falling Khasra No.569/126 of village Poshal
for the purpose of construction of Panchayat
Bhawajn Headquarter for Gram Panchayat
Poshal or allotment of land surrendered by
getting administrative permission of Khasra
No.679/432 and 680/432."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier
lands of Khasra No.679/432 & 680/432 were earmarked for the
purpose of construction of Panchayat Bhawan, however, later on,
the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat has illegally passed a
resolution that the Gram Panchayat Bhawan be constructed in
Khasra No.106. It is submitted that the said proposal of the Gram
Panchayat is accepted by the authorities concerned and they have
decided to construct the Gram Panchayat Bhawan of Gram Poshal
in Khasra No.106. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioners and other villagers have already
represented themselves before the authorities concerned with a
prayer that change of place for the purpose of construction of
Gram Panchayat Bhawan is illegal. It is also submitted that the
earlier land, proposed for the purpose of construction of Gram
Panchayat Bhawan, is more suitable than the new earmarked land.
It is, therefore, prayed that the authorities concerned be directed
(3 of 4) [CW-10359/2021]
to construct new Panchayat Bhawan in Khasra No.679/432 &
680/432.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after
going through the material available on record, I do not find any
case for interference in this writ petition.
It is settled law that the matter regarding construction of
building of public utility is the domain of the Government and its
functionaries and until and unless it is demonstrated that there is
flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of
authorities or it suffer from malafides, no interference is
permissible in such administrative matters while exercising powers
of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State
of A.P. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 364 has observed as under:-
"31. 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 subsection (5) of Section 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'
(4 of 4) [CW-10359/2021]
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".
The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any malafide in
the actions of respondents and have also failed to prove violation
of any law.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ
petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
79-T.Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
