Photo used for indicative purpose only
Shimla, May 7
Himachal Pradesh high Court has reiterated that courts should exercise restraint while examining administrative and policy decisions taken by the government in public interest, while dismissing an appeal challenging the location of a proposed Health Sub Centre in Mandi district.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi dismissed Letters Patent Appeal No. 678 of 2025 titled Kalasu versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others on May 7, 2026.
The appellant had sought construction of the Health Sub Centre at Village Bahi over land donated by him. However, the State authorities selected another site at Village Sarhi after inspection by a duly constituted committee and consideration of public convenience and local opinion. The Chief Medical Officer had concluded that the Bahi site was unsuitable and ordered return of the donated land.
Also Read
While upholding the State’s decision, the High Court made significant observations on the scope of judicial review over public power and administrative discretion. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in G.B. Mahajan versus Jalgaon Municipal Council, the Bench observed that public law seeks to “discipline public power” and make its exercise legitimate through legal principles and regulatory mechanisms.
The court quoted noted jurist Professor Wade to underline that within legal boundaries there remains “ample room for radical differences of opinion in which neither side is unreasonable.” It further referred to the celebrated Tameside case, where Lord Denning cautioned against confusing strong differences of opinion with unreasonableness on the part of authorities.
The Bench also relied upon the observations of Lord Diplock, who held 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.”
The court further observed that policy making lies in a “vast landscape” between political decision-making and strict judicial adjudication, where competing public values are reconciled into operational governance. It held that courts cannot lightly assume governmental action to be unreasonable or against public interest unless clear material is placed on record.
Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the State’s decision, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the earlier judgment of the Single Judge.
About the Author
