Antony Dominic, J. 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and 7, standing counsel appearing for the 6th respondent and senior counsel appearing for the other party respondents.
2. Appellants are the parents of three students studying in the school of which the 7th respondent is the Headmaster. They were aggrieved by the construction work undertaken in the school and their allegation was that the football ground available in the school premises will be affected by the construction. Therefore, they approached this Court contending that the construction will not be proceeded in any manner affecting the existing football ground.
3. Learned single Judge elaborately heard the parties and taking note of the contention raised by the official respondents that in spite of the WA.735/14 2 construction undertaken the football ground will be retained, dismissed the writ petition. However, the learned Judge ordered that the construction will be undertaken in such a way that there shall be no further intrusion into the area earmarked as the football ground. It is challenging this judgment, the appeal filed.
4. The main contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that subsequent to the judgment, the Panchayat itself resolved on 15.5.2014 to approach this Court seeking modification of the plan which was submitted before this court in order to make maximum utilization of the football ground. Referring to this resolution, learned senior counsel contended that this itself shows that the area will be affected by the construction and the contrary submission made is incorrect. He also contended that the further resolution of the Panchayat showed that the buildings which do not have fitness certificate are to be demolished and according to him, once such buildings are demolished, further area will be available within the school compound where the WA.735/14 3 construction can be undertaken without in any manner affecting the football ground.
5. However, learned standing counsel for the Panchayat submitted before us that the resolution to obtain modification of the judgment has already been withdrawn by the Panchayat. If that be so, the basis of the first contention raised by the learned counsel ceases and for that reason itself, we reject that contention.
6. In so far as the second contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the construction can be undertaken at the place where the buildings are proposed to be demolished is concerned, according to us, a decision as to whether a school building should be constructed at place A or place B is essentially a matter for the administrators to decide and unless such decision is vitiated by reason of circumstances justifying its interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not be justified in interfering with such decision. In so far as this case is concerned, we WA.735/14 4 are of the view that the appellants have failed in establishing any one of those vitiating circumstances and for that reason, we are unable to accept this contention also.
We do not find any substance in the appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.