Judicial Review Not Permissible In Administrative Matters Unless There Is Malafide Or Flagrant Violation Of Law: Rajasthan High Court

A division bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled,

"It is the settled law that the matter regarding construction of a building of public utility is the domain of the Government and its functionaries and until and unless it is demonstrated that there is a flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of authorities or it suffer from mala fides, no interference is permissible in such administrative matters while exercising powers of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The present writ petition was filed seeking directions to the respondent state to immediately stop or cancel the proposal/work of creating a new Gram Panchayat Building on land of Khasra No.3418/1. Alternatively, petitioners sought directions to the respondents to develop the existing Gram Panchayat Building by incorporating a closed school's land and that sanctioned budget of Rs.25.00 lacs be transferred for said purpose immediately. Petitioners alleged that the new proposed Building is almost 3 Km far from the approach of the local citizens, who are the beneficiaries.

The court opined that Apex Court on a number of occasions held that policy decisions of the State should not be disturbed until and unless they are found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational. In this regard, the court further opined that it would not interfere with the policy decisions of the authorities until and unless the same can be faulted on the grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness and unfairness.

While dismissing the petition, reliance was placed by the court in J.R. Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. [(1988) 4 SCC 364], wherein the location of Mandal Headquarters was changed by the decision of the government, which was questioned on the ground that it was against executive instructions. The Apex Court court had ruled that 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 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities have failed to redress their grievance and started construction on the location allotted by the District Collector, Tonk. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the proposed new building is situated far away and there are lack of facilities of transportation etc., so it would be inconvenient for the villagers to attend the Panchayat proceedings.

He also argued that by accepting this petition, direction be issued to the respondents to construct and shift the new proposed building of Panchayat in the school situated nearby the area.

Case Title: Vijay Narayan Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 66

Click Here To Read/Download Order