Dismissed

Sukhjinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 May 2012CWP/10749/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the decision to shift a veterinary hospital on Panchayat Samiti land. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Panchayat Samiti had the right to terminate the arrangement as a new building was available, and the Court could not interfere with executive decisions deemed to be in public interest absent perversity.

What did the court decide?

Grant of stay and directions to prevent shifting of the veterinary hospital.

Sukhjinder Singh and Anr. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P. No.10749 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

C.W.P. No.10749 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.05.2012

¶4

Sukhjinder Singh and another

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Shri G.S.Lalli ,Advocate for the petitioners

¶11

Mr. P.S.Thiara, Addl. AG, Punjab Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for respondents no. 4 and 5

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with a grievance that the veterinary hospital which was existing on the land of Panchayat Samiti be not shifted to other place as it is contrary to the public interest.

¶14

The instant writ petition has been filed by two residents of the village with the aforesaid grievance.

¶15

The respondents have filed their response and have stated that the land belongs to the Panchayat Samiti and the same was temporarily rented out to veterinary hospital and once the new veterinary hospital building has come up at a focal point, the same is being shifted there.

¶16

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is totally mis-conceived. The land concededly belongs to the Panchayat Samiti and if it, as an owner wishes to terminate

¶17

C.W.P. No.10749 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶18

the arrangement, it is very well within its right to do so, more specifically when an alternate building has been made available and constructed by the Department of Animal Husbandary itself by which the hospital has been set up at a building at a focal point. The decision to place, construct and shift a hospital is in the domain of the Executive which may take necessary decisions in this regard and the Court in its exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot make a foray into the domain of the decision making authorities which are ostensibly working for public interest. Merely because two persons perceive this decision to be against public interest cannot be made the basis of a challenge to a decision unless the same is shown to be perverse and blatantly against public interest.

¶19

Reliance has been placed on case titled as Darshan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab and others reported as 1984 PLJ 398 by the learned counsel for the petitioners to say that the public interest should be evident in the orders passed by the competent authority and if the same are not manifested in such orders then the Court is very well within its right to scrutinize and entertain the writ petition.

¶20

There could be no doubt about the fact that a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India vests the Court with wide powers but the same are to be used with circumspection which the judicial discipline and the adherence to the first principles of law demands. Under the garb of exercising power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the Court will not acquire the powers to run an administration. To evaluate public interest is certainly within the rights of the decision making authorities when it resorts to setting up of a building,

¶21

C.W.P. No.10749 of 2011 (O&M) 3

¶22

hospital of public importance. The Court neither has the requisite expertise nor the power to evaluate the location of such place of construction of hospital/veterinary hospital or any building of such public utilities unless such are shown to be impractical and the decisions smack of arbitrariness or perversity. No such material is evident on the record. Consequently, the Court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, moreso, when prima facie it seems that the department of Animal Husbandry has set up its own hospital, obviously keeping in view the interest of the residents at large.

¶23

Hence, dismissed.

¶24

May 18, 2012 rekha

¶25

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

Sukhjinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhjinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Realtech Construction Private Limited and Anr. Vs Fame India Limited

M/S Induction Furnace Association of North India Vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. (Pspcl)&Ors

Jagjeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jitender & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.