Ajay Mohan Goel JUDGMENT
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Communication dated 12th March, 2018 (Annexure P-7), vide which, the office of Additional Chief Secretary (Public Works Department), Government of Himachal Pradesh has informed the office of Engineer-in-Chief (Public Works Department) that the matter regarding construction of new PWD Rest House Kutara, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla was reviewed by the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 26th February, 2018 and the same has been cancelled.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are as under:
An announcement was made by the then Chief Minister of the State on 2nd June, 2017 for sanctioning of a PWD Rest House at village Kutara during the tour of Rohru Constituency in District Shimla. This was followed by issuance of a Communication dated 7th June, 2017 (Annexure P-1) from the office of the Chief Minister to the office of Additional Chief Secretary (Public Works Department), Government of Himachal Pradesh as also Engineer-in-Chief (Public Works Department), Himachal Pradesh that necessary action be taken and compliance sent with regard to the announcement made by the Chief Minister.
3. Vide Communication dated 12th October, 2017 (Annexure P-5) addressed by the office of Additional Chief Secretary (Public Works) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, to Chief Engineer (South Zone), Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, it was conveyed that Administrative Approval & Expenditure Sanction amounting to ` 107.00 lacs stood accorded subject to restriction of funds during the financial year 2017-2018. This decision of the Government of construction of a new PWD Rest House at Kutara stood reviewed by the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 26th February, 2018 and the same has been cancelled, which action of the State stands assailed by way of this writ petition.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that the decision of the State to cancel the construction of the above mentioned Rest House is arbitrary, as once the competent authority has sanctioned the construction of the Rest House, such Government decision ordinarily cannot be reviewed. It has further been contended that the set procedure for reviewing a Cabinet decision has not been followed and further there was no justification for cancelling the construction of new Rest House, as all steps required stood taken by the appropriate authorities in this regard. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the following judgments:
1. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and others MANU/SC/0994/2004 : (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 625.
2. State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organization and others MANU/SC/2206/2006 : (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 683.
3. State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. K. Shyam Sunder and others (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 737.
4. Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation Vs. B. Narasimha Reddy and others MANU/SC/1020/2011 : (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 286.
5. On the other hand, the stand of the State is that general elections for State Legislature were held in the month of September, 2017 and after the Change of Guard, the proposal of construction of Rest House at village Kutara was reviewed in the Cabinet and it was observed that the occupancy in su........