The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's recent decision to stay a proposal to shift the headquarters of the Himachal Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes from Shimla to Dharamshala in Kangra district..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria formed a prima facie opinion that there was no need for the court to interfere in such matters."Prima Facie, it seems to us that the shifting of HQ of an institute is a policy matter which has least scope of justiciability and especially if it affects the rights of public at large. It is difficult to form an opinion at a stage when the State has not even filed a counter (in the case before the High Court). Since the matter is pending at High Court, we make no further comment on merits. However, there is no reason for the State to not shift the office. Thus, we set aside the High Court (stay) order. State is at liberty to shift the office (to) Dharamshala or any other suitable place subject to orders in pending proceeding," the Court said..On January 9 this year, the Himachal Pradesh High Court had stayed the move to shift the State's Backward Classes Commission office to Dharamshala after a public interest litigation (PIL) petition was filed by one Ram Lal Sharma opposing the move.Sharma was a former member of commission.He argued that over ₹22 lakh was paid to lease the present premises at Shimla for 99 years and that the Commission has a small number of employees. There was nothing to show what accommodation arrangements had been made either in Dharamshala, the High Court was told.The High Court last month sought the response of the State authorities concerned and posted the case for further hearing in April while also staying the decision."In the meantime, the above said shifting shall remain stayed," the High Court ordered.This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Himachal Pradesh government..The top court expressed reservations about how the proposal to shift the commission was questioned and the High Court's decision to stay the move."What is the problem if some offices are shifted? Who are you to tell the elected government where to have the offices? Who is the petitioner here? Is this issue justiciable at all? Why the High Court is unnecessarily indulging in all of this? Lawyers have been agitating in Dharamshala when I was the Chief Justice there for a tribunal branch there. They were on strike then. Now if some offices are shifted, what's the issue? This is not some court etc," CJI Kant observed.Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan appeared for the Himachal Pradesh government and submitted that officers, who have issues with relocating, may not have to shift at all."Some of the officers who have issues, they won't be sent to the Dharamshala office at all," she said.Notably, while the headquarters are proposed to be shifted to Dharamshala, the existing office at Shimla is planned to be used as a camp office..Divan also explained why the State had proposed to shift the headquarters to Kangra."Majority of the backward classes are there in Kangra..so they are close to Dharamshala," she said.The Court too observed that platforms for justice should be brought closer to those who are in need of the same."When we (seek) access to justice or court at doorsteps. Should we not think in this regard? Shouldn't people be able to come to seek justice or seek redressal?" it said.CJI Kant added that the judiciary should ideally not interfere in measures taken in this regard."Judiciary should remain aloof from such decisions unless we find that such a decision is directly in the teeth of constitutionality and or Part III (fundamental rights) of the Constitution," he said..Therefore, the Court proceeded to set aside the High Court's stay in the matter..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
