State
of U.P. & Ors Vs. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & ANR[2008] INSC 407 (10 March 2008)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA CIVIL APPEAL No. 1272 OF 2002 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of
the Allahabad High Court. The controversy related to creation of a new district
i.e. Baghpat in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. By the impugned order the High Court disposed of the writ petition as
follows:
"In view of the order passed in W.P. No. 5004 of 1999 Mohd. Tariq v. State of U.P. no further order is required in
this petition.
Petition is disposed of."
3. Since the order is practically unreasoned, it is necessary to take note
of the factual background. On 15.9.1997 a Notification was issued under Section
11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 (in short the 'Act') read with Section 21
of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (in short the 'General Clauses
Act'). The Governor directed creation of a new District by the name of Baghpat
with effect from the date of publication of the Notification. A Writ Petition
No. 9085 of 1999 was filed challenging the aforesaid Notification. There were
essentially two prayers i.e. one was to quash the Notification dated 15.9.1997
and the other not to permit Baghpat District to continue. A Writ Petition Civil
Misc. No.
39756 of 1998 had been filed wherein creation of a new District "Sant
Kabir Nagar" was challenged in Ram Milan Sukla & Ors. By order dated
15.1.1999 a Division Bench of the High Court quashed the Notification dated
9.11.1998 and directed a fresh consideration. The operative portion of the
judgment reads as follows:
"On the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this petition,
quash the order dated 9.11.1998 and direct the State Government to reconsider
the matter and decided whether there was any good administrative and financial
grounds to issue the notification dated 5.9.1997 for creation of Sant Kabir
district. If the State Government again decides to continue Sant Kabir Nagar and
other districts created by the previous Government then it must introduce a
bill in the State Legislature for this purpose. Until and unless such a bill is
introduced and passed the notification dated 5.9.1997 shall remain in
abeyance."
4. The matter was carried to this Court in SLP(C)No. CC 1384/1999 and by
order dated 26.3.1999 this Court dismissed the writ petition noting as follows:
"Permission to file SLP is granted in Special Leave Petition(CC
1364/99).
Looking to the facts and circumstances as set out by the High Court in the
impugned judgment, no intervention is called for under Article 136. Hence the
Special Leave Petitions are dismissed."
5. In the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9085 of 1999 to which the present
dispute relates, counter affidavit was filed on 16.3.1999. Another Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 5004 of 1999 was filed before the High Court challenging the
creation of Kausambi District. The said writ petition was disposed of by order
dated 12.4.1999 with reference to the order passed by the High Court in Ram
Milan Shukla's case referred to above.
6. Learned Advocate General of the State submitted before the High Court
when the writ petition was being heard that the Government will comply with the
orders of the High Court made in Ram Milan Shukla's case. It was further stated
that Budgetary provisions have been made in respect of certain districts and
the budget has been presented and passed. It was further stated that certain
districts created by the previous Government were being retained while others
were not.
7. The Division Bench noted that the facts of the said case were covered by
the Division Bench's judgment in Ram Milan's case decided on 15.1.1999. However
the High Court made certain observations which we feel were not necessary to be
made while dealing with the writ petition. They related to the District
Magistrate and Superintendent of Police and other officials of the District
living at Allahabad and it was also noted that similar was the position in the
case of Sant Kabir Nagar's officials. These observations about where the
officer should stay and similar other observations really had no relevance.
When the writ petition to which this case relates i.e. Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 9085 of 1999 was taken up, the High Court as noted above disposed
of the same with reference to Mohan Tariq's case i.e. Writ Petition No. 5004 of
1999. It is relevant to note that on 7.1.2000 the Cabinet of the State
Government took the following decisions:
"The Cabinet decision dated 7.1.2000 as contained in the original
letter dated 10.1.2000 of the Joint Secretary (Confidential) issued on behalf
of the Chief Secretary and Cabinet Secretary states that ;
"Cabinet in its meeting dated 10.1.2000 after discussion decided that
new districts and Divisions created in the year 1997 shall be continued as it
is and with regard to them further steps as necessary regarding placing of
Ordinance/Bill be taken."
8. It appears that there was a contempt petition filed before the High Court
i.e. Contempt Petition No. 1449 of 1999 in CMWP No. 39756/1998 which was
disposed of inter-alia with the following observations:
"In supplementary counter affidavit filed by Ajit Kumar Shahu,
Secretary, Revenue Department of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, dated 13.3.2002, it
has been stated that pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the Cabinet had
constituted a sub-Committee under the Chairmanship of Revenue Minister
regarding the consideration of utility, viability and expenditure along with
facilities of public in general, which submitted a report and it was decided
that the new Districts and Commissionery constituted and established in the
year 1997 shall be retained and continued as it is. The decision of the Cabinet
dated 7.1.2000 as circulated, is also filed as Annexure SCA II to the
supplementary counter affidavit. It is also the supplementary counter
affidavit. It is also stated that in view of the decision of the Cabinet based
on the report of the Sub-Committee, and passing of the regular annual financial
statements (Budget appropriation Bill, the order dated 15.1.1999 is complied
with.
Thus in view of the averment made in the supplementary counter affidavit,
the Court is not inclined to proceed any further in the contempt proceedings.
The notice earlier issued is discharged and the contempt petition is
dismissed."
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the approach of
the High Court is clearly erroneous. In matters of policy- decision like
creation of a District/State, the High Court should not have interfered and
that too on wholly irrelevant grounds. So far as Ram Milan's case is concerned
this Court did not interfere because there was a direction for
re-consideration. The re-consideration has been done and the decision of the
Cabinet has been taken on 7.1.2000.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that creation of a
district should not be done in a routine manner and the High Court has rightly
taken note of several factors.
11. In Ram Milan's case the High Court had directed re- consideration which
apparently has been done as is evident from the Cabinet's decision.
12. Cabinet's decision was taken nearly eight years back and appears to be
operative. That being so there is no scope for directing reconsideration as was
done in Ram Milan's case, though learned counsel for the respondents prayed
that such a direction should be given. As rightly contended by learned counsel
for the State, in matters of policy decisions, the scope of interference is
extremely limited. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it
alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all relevant
aspects from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of
discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is
not shown. Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and
should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in
such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the government the
Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the
Government.
13. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
