IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPIL No.75 of 2026 Decided on : 09.07.2026 Arsh Bhardwaj ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and Anr. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Petitioner in person. For the respondent(s) : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, who is pursuing Law from National Law University Ghandal, Shimla, HP. 2. By way of the present petition, challenge has been laid to the notification dated 02.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the office of the Engineer-in-Chief (Project) is being shifting from Mandi to Fatehpur, District Kangra, HP along with 33 posts of various category. Directions have been sought to retain the office at the said place in larger public interest. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 3. Perusal of the Notification dated 02.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) would go on to show that the said officials of various other categories/posts have been directed to shift with immediate effect in public interest by the State. The petitioner has averred that even at an earlier point of time, the office of the Engineer-in-Chief (Project) was shifted from Fatehpur to Mandi, after due consideration and therefore, this re-shifting as such is not justified and causes extra financial burden on the State Exchequer. 4. The petitioner has drawn our attention to the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in CWPIL No.38 of 2025, titled Naresh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors., whereby shifting of HP-RERA to Dharamshala, had been stayed. 5. In this respect, learned Dy. Advocate General submits that the stay granted vide order dated 16.07.2025 by this Court, stands vacated by the Apex Court, vide order dated 12.02.2026 in SLP(c) No.5835 of 2026, titled The State of HP and Ors. VS. Naresh Sharma. Thereafter, the same has been allowed on 22.05.2026 and CWPIL No.38 of 2025, was accordingly, disposed of. The direction was given to the State to ensure that an online portal for filing of complaints and facilitating virtual hearings and other facilities is set up in connection with the office of HP-RERA at Dharamshala. -3- Resultantly, the petitioner in person cannot take any benefit from the said order passed. 6. Learned Dy. Advocate General has submitted that shifting the headquarter of an office/institution is essentially a policy-decision, as such, and even the locus standi of the petitioner, as such, has accordingly been questioned. 7. Learned Dy. Advocate General has drawn our attention to judgment passed by this Court in CWPIL No.52 of 2025, titled Dewa Nand Vs. State of HP and Ors., whereby the office of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wild Life), HP, had been shifted from Shimla to Dharmashala, District Kangra, HP. We had dismissed the said case on 20.04.2026, raising challenge in it primarily on the ground that the petition was not maintainable in the absence of any locus standi and the purpose of Public Interest Litigation is meant to be invoked for the purposes of downtrodden people and to give opportunity to the people, who are not in a position to approach the Court. We had placed reliance upon the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court in Janata Dal Vs. HP Chowdhary and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 305 and Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of UP and Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 734. On merits, we had also taken into consideration, that the said decision would be falling under the -4- ambit of policy-decision of the State, and was not open to the judicial review. 8. Learned Dy. Advocate General has drawn our attention to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in J.R. Raghupathy and Ors. Vs. State of AP and Ors., a/w connected matters (1988) 4 SCC 366, wherein the location of Mandal Headquarter was being shifted and the issue was whether it would be in amenable jurisdiction of the High Court. The relevant extract whereof reads as under:- “9. It will serve no useful purpose to delineate the facts in all the cases which follow more or less on the same lines. We are of the opinion that the High Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government to locate the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place. The decision to locate such Headquarters at a particular village is dependent upon various factors. The High Court obviously could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters. In some of the cases the High Court declined to interfere saying that the Government was the best judge of the situation in the matter of location of Mandal Headquarters. However, in a few cases the High Court while quashing the impugned notifications for location of Mandal Headquarters issued under sub-s. (5) of s. 3 of the Act on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines, directed the Government to reconsider the question after hearing the parties. 17. We find it rather difficult to sustain the interference by the High Court in some of the cases with location of -5- Mandal Headquarters and quashing of the impugned notification on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience or that the Headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the areas surrounded by it or that merely because a particular person who was an influential Member of Legislative Assembly belonging to the party in opposition had the right of representation but failed to avail of it. The location of Headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-s. (5) of s. 3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like Gram Panchayat and the general public, keeping in view the relevant factors. Even assuming that any breach of the guidelines was justiciable, the utmost that the High Court could have done was to quash the impugned notification in a particular case and direct the Government to reconsider the question. There was no warrant for the High Court to have gone further and directed the shifting of the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place.” 9. Reference has also been made to the powers of this Court for invoking the power of mandamus to enforce the guidelines, which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force and in the absence of any legal right, as such, directions could not have been issued. In this respect, reference is also made to the judgment passed by this Court in Amar Singh and Ors. Vs. State of HP and -6- Anr., 1998 (2) Shim. L.C. 508, taking a similar view. It is also important to note that in the said case, the shifting of Circle Office Project from Shahnehar Project from Jawali to Sihal, was a matter of consideration before the Coordinate Bench, and would have binding precedent. 10. We are of the view that the present case is a policy- decision and we see hardly any scope for judicial review of such a decision, until it is clearly unreasonable. 11. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the present Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 09th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)