1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner challenges the shifting of the Village Administrative Office from one village to another.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, this writ petition is to be rejected in limine. It is well-settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. Even if there is violation of any law, we are not bound to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. In J.R. RAGHUPATHY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH , the Supreme Court observed that interference by the High Court in exercise of its' jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Government's decision regarding the location of Mandal Headquarters on the ground of breach of guidelines is not warranted. In CHANDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN it was held that the writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction. Similar view was taken in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA . Moreover, petitioner has not been able to show any of his rights has been violated or infringed by shifting the Village Administrative Office. This is not a fit case, in our opinion, for exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Connected WPMP No. 30045 of 2003 is closed.