Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5084-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 6299 of 2025 Shyamali Sharma, Aged about 34 years, Wife of Manoj Kumar, Resident of Garhwatand, Barwadih P.O. & P.S.- Barwadih, District- Latehar, Jharkhand ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, At Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, At Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, At Latehar, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District- Latehar, Jharkhand. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Latehar, At Latehar, P.Ο. & P.S. Latehar, District- Latehar, Jharkhand. 5. The Executive Engineer, National Rural Employment Programme (N.R.E.P.), At Latehar, P.O. & P.S. - Latehar, District- Latehar, Jharkhand. 6. The Circle Officer, Barwadih, P.O. & P.S. Barwadih, District- Latehar, Jharkhand. 7. The Block Development Officer, Barwadih, P.O. & P.S.-Barwadih, District- Latehar, Jharkhand. 8. The Officer in Charge, Barwadih Police Station, Barwadih, P.O. & P.S. Barwadih, District- Latehar, Jharkhand. .... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the petitioner: Mr. Anup Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. --------- 03/Dated: 19.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Anup Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to learned A.G. appearing for the State. 2. This purported Public Interest Litigation seeks the following reliefs:- (a) For a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the Respondents concerned not to construct any Block Level Stadium in the Open Space bearing Khata No. 188, Plot No. 1373 of Tola-Garhwatand, Village & Block- Barwadih, Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5084-DB District-Latehar, in the interest of public at large as because on the said land there are Primary School (Utkramit Prathmik Vidyalaya), Durga Mandap, Anganbadi Centre and Imambara situated and the said Open Space is being used by general public for performing religious, cultural and spiritual occasions. (b) For quashing the e-Tender Invitation Notice No. 02/2025- 26/EE/NREP/LATEHAR dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure-2) issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, NREP, Latehar, Respondent No. 5 with respect to Identification No./Package No. NREP/LATEHAR/3/2056-26 of the said Tender Notice, whereby and whereunder the Respondent No. 5 without obtaining the opinion/consent of the general public of the said village published the said Tender Notice which is against the Fundamental Rights of the Villagers guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (c) For a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the Respondents concerned restraining them from making any construction of the proposed Block Level Stadium over the said land during pendency of the above writ application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Stadium is being built on an “open space”; it blocks the villagers’ easementary access to a Anganwadi School; it affects the villagers’ right to shelter which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that Durga Puja has been celebrated on this open space for the past 19 years with great pomp, and the Anganwadi, the access to which would be blocked Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5084-DB if the Stadium is constructed, has been in operation since 1994. There is also a reference to an Imambara next to the Anganwadi, where the Tazia procession has been held for the last 20 years. Accordingly, it is submitted that if the Stadium is constructed, it would affect the above- referred fundamental rights of the villagers, in addition to being a waste of public money. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the right to clean air, right to shelter, and pollution-free atmosphere is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution as was held in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086, and Chameli Singh and Ors v. State of U.P. and Others, (1996) 2 SCC 549. 6. For all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that we should entertain this writ petition and stop the construction of the Stadium, which, he admitted, was complete to the extent of 50%. 7. Mr Piyush Chitresh, the learned A.C. to A.G., opposed the grant of any relief in this petition by pointing out that the averments in the petition were extremely vague. He submitted that this was Government land and that the construction was being put up after all legal procedures had been followed and tenders invited. He submitted that the contentions that easementary rights for ingress or egress are false are false, and that any adjudication would involve delving into disputed questions of fact. He submitted that reference to religious processions is made only to add spice to the petition. 8. Mr Chitresh submitted that the right to shelter or clean air is not at all being affected, and even providing the Stadium for the benefit of Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5084-DB the people, especially the youngsters who use the sports facilities, is a public purpose eminently in the public interest. He submitted that the construction of the Stadium will not cause pollution or environmental degradation, as alleged in the petition. He relied on Deoghar District Bus Owner’s Association v. The State of Jharkhand and Others [W.P. (Filing) No. 3831 of 2025, decided on 03.07.2025] and B.N. Shankarappa v. Uthanur Srinivas and Others, (1992) 2 SCC 61, to submit that judicial review would normally not extend to deciding the place or location of any facility like a public stadium. For all these reasons, he submitted that this petition may be dismissed, particularly now that 50% of the construction has already been completed using public funds. 9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 10. At the outset, we note that the averments in this purported Public Interest Litigation are extremely sketchy, general and bereft of any details. There are general allegations made by referring to certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which hold that the right to clean air, water and pollution-free surroundings or the right to shelter, are a part of the right of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. Although there can be no doubt about these aspects, the petitioner has failed to seriously plead or explain how the Government's construction of a stadium on its own property can affect such rights. On the basis of mere allegations unsupported by any material whatsoever except some photographs here and there, we do not think that this petition can be regarded as a Public Interest Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5084-DB Litigation or, in any event, a serious Public Interest Litigation that could be entertained by this Court. 12. Regarding the allegations of obstruction to ingress, egress, or easementary rights, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, any adjudication of such matters would involve the determination of seriously disputed questions of fact. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction for this purpose would, therefore, be futile. If the petitioner is indeed serious about his claim of easementary rights or alleged blockage of access, then his remedy would be before the ordinary courts, where he would have the opportunity to lead evidence and prove his point. Even the allegation that construction is taking place in an open space conceals far more than it reveals. There are no pleadings that construction is to take place in a designated open space under municipal or town planning regulations or under a development scheme. The petitioner has not gone so far as to claim ownership of this land to date. The bald allegation is that construction is taking place in an open space. Based upon such an allegation, the Government cannot be stopped from undertaking or executing a public project on its own land. 13. The contention that the space has been used for religious activities for the last two decades is neither here nor there. Mere usurpation without assertion of any right of usurpation is never sufficient. In any event, these are not matters that can be agitated in a Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5084-DB Writ Court or by instituting a Public Interest Litigation without providing for any particulars. 14. In Deoghar District Bus Owner’s Association [W.P. (Filing) No.3831 of 2025, order dated 03.07.2025], the Coordinate Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar) was a party, has held that a petition to challenge the action of the State in selecting a particular site for construction of a Panchayat Sachiwalay Building is normally not amenable to judicial review. In paragraph 4, after referring to the decisions in the case of J.R. Raghupati vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1988) 4 SCC 364 and B.N. Shankarappa (supra), it was held that the decisions with regard to place or location of any facility like the one in question is left to the Government to decide, and conferment of discretion upon the concerned authority in that behalf must necessarily leave the choice to the discretion of the said authority, and it would not be proper for the Courts to interfere with the discretion so exercised. 15. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we dismiss this petition without any order for costs, since it is pleaded that the petitioner was a law student and is now undertaking “social work”. 16. Pending interim application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) February 19 , 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 26.02.2026