2025:HHC:23583 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10558 of 2025 Decided on: 21.07.2025 Kalasu … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to construct the building of Health Sub Centre Badi Sarhi at village Bahi over the land comprised in Khata-Khatauni No. 61/126 Min, area measuring 6 Biswa situated at Mohal Bahi, Sub Tehsil Pangna, district Mani, H.P. donated by the petitioner in a time bound manner in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is stated to have donated land for the purpose of construction of a Health Sub Centre at village Bahi, Tehsil Karsog, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23583 district Mandi, H.P. The land was donated vide gift deed dated 26.02.2010. As the respondents were not coming up with construction of the Health Sub Centre on the land donated by the petitioner, the petitioner filed CWP No. 3177 of 2024, titled as Kalasu vs. State of H.P. and others, which was decided by this Court on 09.05.2024, in the following terms:- “4. Though, having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition, coupled with the fact that it is the exclusive domain of the Executive to take decision with regard to setting up of Health Centre, prima facie, this Court is of the view that petition is not maintainable, rather, appropriate remedy, if any, is to represent the department concerned, however, having taken note of the fact that before filing the petition at hand, petitioner as well as respondent No.5 i.e. Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Bahi-Sarhi, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., had represented District Medical Officer, Mandi vide representation dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure P-10) and 09.08.2023, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the direction to the District Medical Officer as well as Block Medical Officer, District Mandi, to look into the matter and ensure that land donated by petitioner herein is used for the purpose, it was donated. Ordered accordingly.” 3 2025:HHC:23583 3. The petitioner is now aggrieved by order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-14) in terms whereof it has been decided by the Authorities that the land that was donated by the petitioner is not suitable for the construction of the Health Sub Centre as the same is 10-15 metres away from the road and the same is to be constructed on the land donated at village Sarhi, which is on the road. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the earlier order was passed by this Court in the petition filed by the petitioner, with a malafide intent, now the impugned order has been passed that too after contempt proceedings were initiated, without appreciating that it was in the larger interest of the residents of the area, had the Health Sub Centre been constructed on the land donated by the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner was not associated by the Authorities, in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court, in the course of the inspection of the site and passing of the impugned order. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order does not address the public cause because if the Health Sub Centre is constructed at the proposed site, it will not be beneficial for the larger public of the area. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to construct the Health Sub Centre on the 4 2025:HHC:23583 land gifted by the petitioner at village Bahi. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned order and submitted that in terms of the direction passed by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, the Chief Medical Officer constituted a Committee and in the said Committee, various officers and officials were associated, so was the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Bahi Sarhi, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, as well as son of the petitioner Sh. Yog Raj and other persons and after inspection of the sites, the committee in the larger public interest took the view that the site gifted by the petitioner was not suitable as it was about 15- 20 metres away from the main road and there was adjoining forest land whereas the land donated at village Sarhi was situated on the main road and there was no issue of any carriage for loading and unloading of material etc. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as the site has been selected in the larger public interest and that too by a Committee, which was constituted to do the needful, comprising of many public representatives as well as the representative of the petitioner, it could not be said that there is any malafide in the decision taken by the Committee. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and having gone through the 5 2025:HHC:23583 order impugned, this Court is of the considered view that there is no perversity in the impugned order. Where a Health Sub Centre building is to be constructed is not to be decided by this Court but has to be decided by the persons, who are from the Department concerned as well as other stakeholders. A perusal of the order under challenge demonstrates that in compliance to the order that was passed by this Court in CWP No. 3177 of 2024 (supra), the Chief Medical Officer, Mandi, constituted a committee, under his Chairmanship, which included the Block Medical Officer, Karsog, for the selection of a suitable site for the construction of the Health Sub Centre at Bahi Sarhi. The Committee inspected both the sites, i.e. at village Bahi as well as at village Sarhi, alongwith the Patwari of the area, besides giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Smt. Kalasu Devi, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Bahi Sarhi, son of the petitioner Yog Raj as well as other persons who were present during the inspection. It is further mentioned in the said order that after visiting both the sites and taking into consideration the benefit of the public at large, the Committee observed that the land provided by the petitioner is 10-15 metres away from the main road and there is adjoining forest land, whereas the land donated at village Sarhi is situated adjoining to the main road and is without requirement of any carriage for loading and unloading of material etc. It is further 6 2025:HHC:23583 mentioned in the order that maximum Panchayat population is likely to be benefited, in case, the Health Sub Centre building is constructed at village Sarhi, as all the other institutions (Public or Private) are also located at village Sarhi. It is further mentioned in the order that at the time of inspection, maximum of the available local residents, were also of the view that the larger public interest would be met in case the Institution is opened at village Sarhi. Accordingly, it was decided that the Health Sub Centre be constructed at village Sarhi and at the same time, the land donated by the petitioner at village Bahi, be returned back to the petitioner after seeking necessary approval. 7. In the light of the contents of the order, which has been passed by the Authority, after visiting the site and by taking into consideration the interest of public at large and also after hearing the petitioner and public representatives of the area, this Court is of the considered view that it is not for this Court to substitute its view for the view so taken by the Authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate during the course of arguments that the Authority took the view on account of extraneous considerations rather than in public interest. Further as already observed hereinabove, it is the Department at the first instance, which has to provide service to the people of the area, to take a call 7 2025:HHC:23583 as to where the Health Sub Centre building should be constructed and ordinarily it is not for the Courts to take administrative calls in such like matters. Such matters are best left to the wisdom of the Authorities. Besides this, as the Authority concerned has also, in addition, in the impugned order stated that the land donated by the petitioner be returned back to the petitioner, the petitioner otherwise should not be aggrieved by the order. Therefore, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 21, 2025 (narender)