New Delhi, Feb 9 (.) The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order staying the State government’s proposal to shift the headquarters of the Himachal Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala in Kangra district, holding that such a move falls within the domain of policy decisions with minimal scope for judicial interference.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that the shifting of the headquarters of an institution is essentially a policy matter and ordinarily not justiciable.
“Prima facie, it seems to us that the shifting of the headquarters of an institution is a policy matter which has the least scope of justiciability, especially when it affects the public at large. Since the matter is pending before the High Court, we make no further comments on the merits. However, there is no reason for the State not to shift the office,” the Bench said, while setting aside the High Court’s interim stay.
The Court clarified that the State would be at liberty to shift the office to Dharamshala or any other suitable place, subject to orders in the pending proceedings.
The High Court had, on January 9, stayed the proposed relocation after a public interest litigation was filed by Ram Lal Sharma, a former member of the Commission.
The petitioner had argued that over Rs 22 lakh had been paid to lease the existing premises at Shimla for 99 years, that the Commission had a limited staff strength, and that no clear accommodation arrangements in Dharamshala had been disclosed.
While issuing notice to the State authorities, the High Court had ordered that the shifting of the office remain stayed until further hearing, scheduled for April.
Challenging this order, the Himachal Pradesh government approached the Supreme Court.
Expressing reservations over the High Court’s intervention, the CJI questioned the very maintainability of the challenge to the State’s decision.
“What is the problem if some offices are shifted? Who is to tell the elected government where to locate its offices? Is this issue justiciable at all?” the CJI observed, adding that courts should refrain from unnecessary interference in administrative and policy matters.
Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan submitted that officers facing difficulty in relocation would not be required to move and that the existing Shimla office would continue to function as a camp office.
She further explained that the decision to shift the headquarters to Kangra was taken since a majority of the backward classes population resides in the region, making Dharamshala more accessible.
The Bench concurred with the broader principle, observing that access to justice and redressal mechanisms should be brought closer to the people.
The CJI underscored that the judiciary ought to remain aloof from such decisions unless they are directly violative of constitutional provisions or fundamental rights.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s stay on the proposed relocation of the Commission’s headquarters.
. SNG SQ ARN