Health Sub-Centre Location Is Policy Matter, But Residents' Objections Must Be Fairly Considered: J&K&L High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
23 Dec 2025 6:25 PM IST
Underscoring the balance between administrative discretion and public fairness, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the choice of location for a government amenity such as a Health Sub-Centre squarely lies within the domain of the competent authority, and no private individual or group can insist upon a particular site.
At the same time, the Court emphasized that the principle of administrative fairness obligates authorities to genuinely consider representations made by affected residents before finalizing such decisions.
The observations were made by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi while disposing of a writ petition filed by residents of a village in District Udhampur, who had challenged the proposed construction of a Health Sub-Centre building at Ward No.05 instead of Ward No.07 of the Panchayat
Background:
The petitioners, residents of the Village had approached the High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to shift the proposed location of the Health Sub-Centre from Ward No.05 to Ward No.07 (Morha Thall). They also sought restraint on the respondents from proceeding with construction at Ward No.05.
The grievance of the petitioners arose when the authorities sanctioned funds and initiated steps for construction of a permanent Health Sub-Centre building at Ward No.05, despite road connectivity now being available to all wards. According to the petitioners, construction at Ward No.05 situated at the edge of the village would inconvenience residents of the remaining wards and disproportionately benefit only a limited section of the population.
Opposing the petition, the official respondents submitted that the Health Sub-Centre was already functioning from Ward No.05 and that state land measuring two kanals had been identified there in consultation with elected Panchayat representatives. Administrative approval for construction had been granted and shifting the location at that stage was stated to be infeasible
Court's Observations:
After hearing both sides, the High Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Mohd. Akhter and others v. State of J&K, reiterating,
“It is within the domain of the competent authority to decide about the location of Government amenities… Neither the petitioners nor anybody else can dictate the State to have particular amenity at a particular place.”
Justice Kazmi categorically held that decisions relating to public infrastructure and allocation of resources are policy decisions, to be taken on the basis of planning norms, technical considerations, and administrative judgment. The Court clarified that no private party has a legal right to unilaterally dictate the location of a government facility.
However, the Court simultaneously carved out an important safeguard by observing,
“Whenever residents, likely to be affected by such decisions on the ground that the proposed location is not centrally accessible or otherwise inequitable, the principle of administrative fairness requires that any representation they have made be genuinely considered before the final decision is taken.”
While declining to interfere with the policy decision itself, the High Court held that the petitioners' representation could not be ignored. Emphasizing the duty of fairness in administrative decision-making, the Court directed the authorities to consider and decide the petitioners' pending representation by passing a speaking order.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent authorities to take a final decision only after considering the objections raised by the residents, within a stipulated period of two weeks.
Case Title: Residents of Seenthakran, Tehsil & District Udhampur Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)