Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Dec 24: High Court held the location of public convenience and amenity is in sole discretion and under the domain of Government but balance between administrative discretion and public fairness must be kept in mind.
Justice Moksha Kazmi made these observations while deciding a matter filed by the residents of Udhampur challenging the proposed construction of a Health Sub Centre at Ward 5 of the village instead of Ward 7 of the panchayat village.
The court has emphasized that no private individual or group can insist upon a particular site for such a facility.
The court, however, at the same time, emphasized that the principle of administrative fairness obligates authorities to genuinely consider representations made by affected residents before finalizing such decisions.
The residents of the village Udhampur had approached the Court seeking a direction to shift the proposed location of the Health Sub-Centre from Ward No.05 to Ward No.07 (Morha Thall) before the construction on the Centre in question is completed.
The Government however opposed the plea and the counsel appearing for the authorities concerned submitted that the Health Sub-Centre was already functioning from Ward No.05 and that state land measuring two kanals had been identified there in consultation with elected Panchayat representatives.
“Administrative approval for construction had been granted and shifting the location at that stage was stated to be infeasible”, he added.
“The decisions relating to public infrastructure and allocation of resources are policy decisions, to be taken on the basis of planning norms, technical considerations, and administrative judgment. No private party has a legal right to unilaterally dictate the location of a government facility”, read the judgment.
However, the Court simultaneously said that residents, likely to be affected by such decisions on the ground that the proposed location is not centrally accessible or otherwise inequitable, the principle of administrative fairness requires that any representation they have made be genuinely considered before the final decision is taken.
The Court directed the authorities to consider and decide the petitioner-villagers’ pending representation by passing a speaking order and to take a final decision only after considering the objections raised by the residents, within a period of two weeks.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
