Important Point
In matters of policy decisions, 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.

Headnote:U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 – Section 11 read with Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 – Issuance of notification by Governor directing creation of a new District by name of Baghpat in State of Uttar Pradesh – Writ Petition thereagainst was filed challenging aforesaid Notification – High Court disposed of writ petition relying upon order passed in W.P. No.5004 of 1999 Mohd. Tariq v. State of U.P where Division Bench noted that facts of the said case were covered by Division Bench’s judgment in Ram Milan’s case decided on 15.1.1999 – Appeal thereagainst – Contention of appellant-State that approach of High Court was clearly erroneous as in matters of policy decision like creation of a District/State, High Court should not have interfered and that too on wholly irrelevant grounds-Case of appellant State that so far as Ram Milan’s case was concerned this Court did not interfere because there was a direction for re-consideration-Held Cabinet’s decision was taken nearly eight years back and appeared to be operative – That being so there was no scope for directing reconsideration as was done in Ram Milan’s case – In matters of policy decisions, 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 – Appeal disposed of. (Paras 12, 13)
       Facts of the Case : –
       1.Notification was issued herein in the instant case by Governor directing creation of a new District by name of Baghpat in State of Uttar Pradesh. Writ Petition thereagainst was filed challenging aforesaid Notification. High Court disposed of writ petition relying upon order passed in W.P. No.5004 of 1999 Mohd. Tariq v. State of U.P where Division Bench noted that facts of the said case were covered by Division Bench’s judgment in Ram Milan’s case decided on 15.1.1999.
       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       Cabinet’s decision was taken nearly eight years back and appeared to be operative. That being so there was no scope for directing reconsideration as was done in Ram Milan’s case. In matters of policy decisions, 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 Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. Appeal was disposed of.
       Result : Appeal disposed of.

judgment

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 ot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 446

2008(2) Supreme 532Supreme Court of indiaDr. Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.State of U.P. & Ors. — PetitionersversusChaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr. — RespondentsAppeal (civil) 1272 of 2002Decided on : 10.03.2008

Important PointIn matters of policy decisions, 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.

2008(2) Supreme 532
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 1272 of 2002
Decided on : 10.03.2008

Important Point
In matters of policy decisions, 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.