4 min readNew DelhiApr 23, 2026 11:48 AM IST
First published on: Apr 23, 2026 at 11:48 AM IST
Patna High Court news: Observing that a school’s location just 1.5 km away from the village cannot be said to violate children’s fundamental rights, the Patna High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the construction of a new school building in a neighbouring location.
A bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar passed the order on a plea against the proposal of construction of a new building of the school in another village.
Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar passed the order on April 17.
“While the petitioner claims to represent the interests of the children of Hasanpura, the proximity of a school, i.e. 1.5 km, does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights, nor does it demonstrate failure of the ‘Right to Education’ framework,” the Patna High Court said in its order dated April 17.
Plea citing inconvenience
- The petitioner had sought directions to the respondent authorities to stop the construction of a new building of a primary school at Hasanpura, 1.5 km away from the village, and to allow the construction of the building on government land next to the government middle school in Hasanpura.
- It was submitted that the proposed school’s location in another village made it inconvenient for the children of the village.
- At the outset, the Patna High Court noted the settled principle of law that the establishment, location and infrastructure development of educational institutions fall within the exclusive domain of the state government.
- It added that the authorities are best placed to assess the broader educational needs of a district.
- The choice of one government site over another is an “administrative decision” and not a matter of judicial scrutiny, unless tainted by gross illegality or malice, the Patna High Court said, observing that neither was present in the current case.
- It said the court should not decide the specific location for the construction of a public utility.
- It further added that such interference would impede the state’s developmental functions and delay the provision of essential infrastructure.
‘Matter of administrative exigency’
The Patna High Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to show any violation of constitutional rights. “The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any statutory or Constitutional right that has been infringed,” it observed, adding that the preference of a specific group of villagers for a particular plot of land does not override the administrative discretion of the state.
The bench held that the location of a school is a matter of administrative exigency and planning, and the court should not interfere in the state’s domain.
“This Court finds that no genuine public interest is involved in this matter. The location of a school is a matter of administrative exigency and planning. The Court must exercise restraint and refrain from interfering in the State’s exclusive domain regarding infrastructure development unless there is a clear violation of the law,” the court said, dismissing the plea.
The Patna High Court held that the location of a school is a matter of administrative exigency and planning, and it should not interfere in the state’s domain. (Image generated using AI) 
Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar passed the order on April 17.
Share
