State decision transferring land between departments in public interest is not subject to judicial review.

The appellant, acting as the President of a Parents-Teacher Association (PTA), along with another individual whose father had donated land to a Government Inter College, challenged a State Government decision.

The State had transferred a portion of the college's land to the Health Department, initially for a Critical Care Unit and subsequently for doctors' residential accommodations to support a nearby District Hospital.

A Single Judge dismissed the original writ petition (WP (M/S) No. 3407 of 2025) on December 9, 2025, on the grounds of lack of locus standi and on merits.

The appellant filed this intra-court appeal seeking to set aside that order, contending that the PTA is legally mandated to preserve the institution’s property.

1. Whether the President of a Parents-Teacher Association has the locus standi to maintain a writ petition challenging the transfer of government land under Regulation 12 (7) of the Uttarakhand Education Act?

2. Whether the State Government’s administrative decision to transfer land between its own departments (Education to Health) in the public interest is subject to judicial review?

Regulation 12 (7) of the Regulations framed under the Uttarakhand Education Act, which imposes a duty upon the Managing Committee of the Parents-Teacher Association to ensure the preservation of the institution's properties.

The principle of administrative law that the State Government, as the custodian of public land, possesses the authority to transfer land between its various departments—acting as different wings of the same sovereign—to serve the public interest.

The doctrine of judicial restraint, holding that the wisdom of government policy regarding land utilization is not subject to judicial review unless the decision is proved to be "totally illegal or arbitrary".

The Court evaluated the appellant's claim of locus standi based on the statutory duty of the PTA to preserve college property under Regulation 12 (7).

The Bench observed that the college itself (the institution) had raised no grievance regarding the transfer.

The Court reasoned that since both the Education and Health Departments are internal wings of the State Government, the State maintains the prerogative to reallocate resources to augment medical facilities in remote areas.

The Court found that the Single Judge correctly identified the State as the ultimate custodian of public land.

The appellant failed to demonstrate any illegality or arbitrariness in the government's decision-making process, which is the threshold required to trigger judicial review of administrative policy.

The Court held that even if the appellant's locus standi were conceded, the challenge failed on substantive merits.

The High Court condoned the 48-day delay in filing but dismissed the Special Appeal.

The findings of the Single Judge were upheld, and the court found no grounds to interfere with the refusal to exercise judicial review.