Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a public-interest direction requiring a tehsil office at a specified new location. The State had decided to rebuild at the existing site, and the petitioner’s family owned neighbouring land at the proposed relocation site. The petition served a personal interest rather than a genuine public interest. Site selection was an executive administrative matter, and the State remained free to decide lawfully.
Issues
- Whether the purported public-interest petition sought to advance a personal land interest.
- Whether the High Court should dictate the location of the tehsil office.
Held
- The State’s prior decision to reconstruct at the existing site had been pre-empted by the High Court’s direction. The petitioner’s family ownership of adjacent land at the requested relocation site was undisputed. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- On these facts the petition was intended to advance the petitioner’s personal interest. High Courts must guard against use of public-interest jurisdiction for extraneous or motivated purposes. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Selection of the tehsil building’s location was an administrative decision for the executive. The High Court erred in directing construction at a particular site; the State could take an appropriate decision according to law. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; High Court’s site-specific directions set aside. Petition disposed of with the State Government free to take an appropriate lawful decision.