Site selection for a community hall is a policy decision, provided school functioning remains undisturbed.

The petitioner challenged the proposed construction of a Community Hall/Kalyana Mandapam in Survey No.376/12 at Mela Sekkarakkudi Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District, on the ground that the site was adjacent to a Government Primary School functioning in Survey No.376/13 and that the construction and subsequent functions would cause disturbance and noise pollution to the schoolchildren.

The petitioner requested that the authorities instead select Survey No.495/1, or any other suitable site, and relied on representations dated 11 May, 5 June and 18 June 2026.

The District Collector reported that the school had 17 students, was enclosed by a compound wall, and that the proposed hall would be approximately 20 metres from the school, occupy about 4.5 to 5 cents, and have a built-up area of approximately 450 square metres, at an estimated cost of Rs.52.35 lakhs.

The authorities stated that Survey No.495/1 was classified as “Urakuli” and was subject to objections regarding alteration of its use, while Survey No.376/8 was also objected to by villagers and was unsuitable. Survey No.376/12 was considered vacant Government land accessible to all residents.

The writ petition was therefore filed under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus for selection of an alternative site.

Whether the High Court should direct the official respondents to select Survey No.495/1, or another alternative site, instead of Survey No.376/12 for construction of the Community Hall.

Whether the proposed construction at Survey No.376/12, situated approximately 20 metres from the Government Primary School, would unlawfully interfere with the functioning of the school or cause unacceptable disturbance to the students.

Whether the choice of site, being an administrative and policy decision of the District Collector, warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 governing the issuance of a writ of mandamus, while recognising that mandamus cannot ordinarily be used to substitute the Court’s decision for that of the competent administrative authority in matters involving site selection and local policy, absent illegality, arbitrariness or demonstrable infringement of legal rights.

The Court also applied the administrative-law principle that a policy decision taken by the competent authority is entitled to judicial deference when supported by relevant material and safeguards against adverse consequences.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court considered the petitioner’s apprehension that the Community Hall would disturb the nearby school, but relied on the District Collector’s report that the school had only 17 students, was protected by a compound wall, and that the hall would be located approximately 20 metres away and constructed within a limited area of about 450 square metres.

The Court further noted the authorities’ explanation that the suggested alternative site in Survey No.495/1 was classified as “Urakuli” and faced objections, while another proposed site was also unsuitable owing to local objections.

Since Survey No.376/12 was vacant Government land and accessible to the village residents, and since the Government Pleader assured the Court that construction would conform to the sanctioned plan and applicable norms and that activities would not disturb the school, the Court treated the site selection as a policy decision within the Collector’s domain.

The Court therefore found no sufficient ground to compel selection of an alternative site.

Recording the assurance that the hall would be constructed within the sanctioned specifications and that its use would not disturb the school or students, the Court permitted construction of the Community Hall at Survey No.376/12 and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.