Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1272 of 2002
PETITIONER:
State of U.P. & Ors
RESPONDENT:
Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
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\005\005\005(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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
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 \026II 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
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.