Court upholds decision to relocate PHED office, citing separation of powers and legislative jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the shifting of the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Circle Office from Ajmer to Bhilwara. The court found no established link between the Chief Minister's alleged political motivations and the decision to relocate the office. Emphasizing the separation of powers, the court declined to review administrative decisions, stating that such matters should be addressed in the legislative assembly rather than the judicial realm. The petition was dismissed to prevent regional controversies from inundating the judicial system.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged political motivation behind the shifting of the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) Circle Office from Ajmer to Bhilwara.
2. The impact of the shifting on the water supply projects and the public interest.
3. The jurisdiction of the court to review administrative decisions.
4. Allegations of mala fides against the Chief Minister.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Political Motivation Behind the Shifting:
The petitioners, led by Shri Kailash Meghwal, M.L.A. of Ajmer, alleged that the decision to shift the PHED Circle Office from Ajmer to Bhilwara was politically motivated. They claimed that the Chief Minister, Shri Shiv Charan Mathur, who hails from Bhilwara, influenced this decision to benefit his constituency. The petitioners argued that this decision was against public interest and was taken to nourish the Chief Minister's political base in Bhilwara.

2. Impact on Water Supply Projects and Public Interest:
The petitioners highlighted the acute water supply problems in Ajmer, which is a significant city with historical, cultural, and religious importance. They argued that the PHED Circle Office in Ajmer managed numerous water supply projects, including those financed by the World Bank, and that shifting the office would adversely affect these projects. The petitioners provided detailed data on the projects and their importance to Ajmer, asserting that there was no justification for moving the office to Bhilwara, which was under the Udaipur circle and did not have similar needs.

3. Jurisdiction of the Court to Review Administrative Decisions:
The court considered whether it should take upon itself the task of judicial scrutiny of the administrative decision to shift the PHED Circle Office. It was noted that the State Government, guided by policy decisions of the concerned Minister or Cabinet, primarily manages such administrative functions. The court observed that the establishment or shifting of administrative offices is neither a matter of judicial nor legislative domain and that such executive or administrative decisions cannot be put to judicial review.

4. Allegations of Mala Fides Against the Chief Minister:
The petitioners alleged mala fides against the Chief Minister, claiming that the decision to shift the office was influenced by him. However, the court found that no details, data, or facts were provided to substantiate these allegations. It was not shown that the Chief Minister directed any specific State functionaries or passed any orders regarding the shifting. The court emphasized that a heavy burden lies on the petitioner to establish a direct connection between the authority passing the order and the alleged mala fide intentions.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was no direct nexus established between the shifting of the office and the alleged designs of the Chief Minister. It was observed that the World Bank and State Government functionaries would not be influenced by irrelevant considerations and that the needs of the people of Ajmer would not be undermined by the shifting of the office. The court refrained from adjudicating the controversy on merits, stating that such political controversies should be addressed in the legislative assembly rather than the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed in limine to prevent the opening of floodgates for regional-oriented controversies in the judicial field.

Final Judgment:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the court resisted the temptation to admit the controversy, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a clear separation between judicial review and administrative decisions in the wider constitutional interest.

---