Selection of New Court Sites is Administrative Domain; PIL Opposing Infrastructure Location Incurs No Public Interest

Three advocates of the Banka District Bar Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Mandamus to compel the construction of various judicial facilities (Family Court, POCSO Court, Excise Court, etc.) within the old campus of the Banka Civil Court

The petitioners challenged the State Cabinet's decision to sanction funds for land acquisition at a new site situated approximately 2 kilometers away from the existing court premises

The State and respondent authorities contended that the new site (4.0047 acres) was selected based on suitability, security, and administrative convenience, and had received approval from the High Court’s Infrastructure Committee

1. Whether the selection of a site for the construction of a court complex by administrative authorities and infrastructure committees serves as a valid ground for a Public Interest Litigation

2. Whether the court should interfere with the administrative decision to acquire land for judicial infrastructure when such decisions involve multiple stakeholders and technical approvals

The Court applied the principle that a Public Interest Litigation must involve a genuine element of public interest and cannot be used to litigate administrative preferences or professional convenience

It relied on the precedent set in Rajesh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 6567 of 2023), which established that claims regarding the specific location of court buildings do not generally qualify as public interest matters and do not warrant judicial interference

The Court observed that while the petition was styled as a PIL, it was essentially a challenge to the administrative choice of location for new courtrooms and offices

The Court emphasized that the selection of the 4.0047-acre site was a result of a consultative process involving the Principal District Judge, District Magistrate, the Law Department, the Building Construction Department, and the Infrastructure Committees of both the District and High Courts

Drawing parity with Rajesh Kumar Singh, the Bench reasoned that since all parameters—suitability, conveyance for lawyers/litigants, and security—had been considered by the relevant stakeholders, the petitioners' preference for the old campus did not constitute a "public interest"

The Court further noted that entertaining such a writ would merely hinder the "smooth progress" of necessary infrastructure development

The Court answered the issues by affirming that administrative decisions regarding judicial infrastructure, made in consultation with specialized committees, should not be disturbed at the behest of individual preferences

Consequently, the writ application was dismissed