2026:HHC:15246 THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.678 of 2025 Reserved on: 30.04.2026 Decided on : 07.05.2026 Uploaded on: 07.05.2026 Kalasu ...Appellant Versus State of HP and others …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 appellant: Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 21st July, 2025, passed in CWP No. 10558 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by the present appellant has been dismissed. In the writ petition filed a direction was being sought qua construction of a Health Sub Centre Bahi 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 Mandi, H.P. donated by the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? -2- 2. In the case at hand, there were two sides under consideration for constructing the Health Sub Centre. One was situated at Village Bahi and the other was situated at Village Sarhi. Both sites had been donated for constructing a Health Sub Centre. Both the sites were inspected by a duly constituted committee. Due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant who had donated the site situated at Village Bahi. The pros and cons of both sites were considered. The view of available local residents at the time of spot inspection was also taken into consideration. In arriving at the decision impugned before the writ court (Annexure P-14 dated 28.4.2025 at page 170 of the paper book) the Chief Medical Officer besides the aforesaid also took into account public interest. Since the site offered by the appellant was not found suitable therefore vide the decision dated 28.4.2025the Chief Medical Officer ordered return of land of the appellant. 3. At the very outset, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in J.R. Raghupathy vs. State of A.P. and others (1998) 4 SCC 364, wherein the Apex Court observed that the ultimate decision as to the place or location of Mandal headquarter 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 -3- it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the discretion so exercised. 4. The very concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action. Reasonable people can hold different opinions as to which is to be preferred. A difference of opinion, howsoever strong, cannot be confused with unreasonableness. The concern of public laws is to discipline public power, make it operational and to render the same legitimate. In this regard, a reference can be made to (1991) 3 SCC 91 titled as G.B. Mahajan and others vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council and others. Relevant extract whereof reads as under:- “The concern of public law is to discipline the public power by forging "legal techniques as part of the way in which public power is made operational and part of the process through which it is attempted to render such public power legitimate and to think of issues of legal regulation of public power in a way that goes deeper than particular instances and elaborate issues of general principle". There is, however, as Professor Wade points out, ample room, within the legal boundaries for radical differences of opinion in which neither side is unreasonable. In Tameside case Lord Denning pointed out the error of confusing differences of opinion, however strong, with unreasonableness on the part of one side or the other. Lord Diplock said that the very concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred.” -4- 5. Other than the aforesaid, in G.B. Mahajan (supra) landscape of policy making has been delineated in the following manner:- “Administrative law is, in essence, a search for a theory of how public policy should be made. Two powerful traditions mark the boundaries of that search. On one side, we leave the choice among competing values to a largely unstructured process of pulling and hauling by individuals directly accountable to the citizenry. On the other side, we demand a highly structured process of party-controlled proof and argument before a neutral arbiter to resolve disputes over the application of rules to specific facts. Between e these extremes is that vast landscape we call policy making - the reconciliation and elaboration of lofty values into operational guidelines for the daily conduct of society's business.” 6. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Amar Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and another, 1998 (2) Shim. L.C. 508, were considering the issue of shifting of a circle office, and on appreciation of the law, held that the policy decision of the Government to shift the circle office was not amenable to its writ jurisdiction. Other than the aforesaid, the petitioners therein, who were residents of the area wherefrom the office was being shifted, were held not having any legally protected or personal or individual right, in exercise of which they could ask for a writ of mandamus to direct the Government to continue the circle headquarters from the place wherefrom it was being shifted. 7. Other than the aforesaid, in Amar Singh (supra), the Court held that there is always a presumption that the Governmental -5- action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by proper and adequate material. The Court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or without public interest because, as we said above, there are a large number of policy considerations which must necessarily weigh with the Government in taking action and therefore the Court would not strike down Governmental action as invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied that the action is unreasonable or not in public interest. But where it is so satisfied, it would be the plainest duty of the Court under the Constitution to invalidate the Governmental action. This is one of the most important functions of the Court and also one of the most essential for preservation of the rule of law. 8. In the aforesaid legal and factual matrix, no infirmity can be found with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 7th May, 2026 (Tarun Singh)