Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, R. Raghunandan Rao, JJ.
Akilapaksham Committee, Hindupur & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P.(PIL) Nos.53, 59, 71, 77 and 78 of 2022
Decided On : 04-04-2024
Mr. Prabhunath Vasireddy, Counsel for Petitioner. Learned Advocate General, Counsel for respondents/State, a/w. GP for GAD, Counsel for respondent No.1; GP for Finance and Planning, Counsel for respondent No.3; GP for Revenue, Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and None for respondent No.6.
IMPORTANT POINT
The decision-making process, not the decision itself, is subject to judicial review.
Headnote:
NATURAL JUSTICE - CHALLENGE TO DISTRICT RESTRUCTURING - Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 - Section 3, Section 4 - The judgment discusses the challenge to the restructuring of districts in Andhra Pradesh and the violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974. The court analyzed the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, emphasizing the consideration of objections and suggestions before issuing notifications for district restructuring.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions challenge the decision of the State Government in declaring new districts and locating district headquarters, alleging violation of natural justice and the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections were invited and considered in accordance with the Act and Rules, and the decision-making process did not violate the legal framework. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that it does not test the decision but the decision-making process.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, alleged breach of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974, and the Rules framed thereunder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the decision-making process, not the decision itself, is subject to judicial review. It cited the Supreme Court judgment in J.R. Raghupathy & Others v. State of A.P. & Others, (1988) 4 SCC 364 to support its decision.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The court found no merit in the petitions, stating that the decision of the Government did not suffer from perversity or violation of the Act of 1974 or the Rules of 1984.
JUDGMENT
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J - W.P.(PIL).No. 53 of 2022 has been filed challenging the decision of the State Government in declaring Hindupur parliamentary constituency as Sri Satya Sai District and locating the District Headquarters at Puttaparthy. The petitioner further prays for writ of mandamus for declaring Hindupur parliamentary constituency as a District instead of Sri Satya Sai District and to locate the District Headquarters at Hindupur instead of Puttaparthy.
W.P(PIL) Nos.59, 77 & 78 of 2022 have been filed challenging the action of the Government in declaring Annamayya District with its Headquarters at Rayachoti and instead it is prayed that Rajampet be declared as Headquarters for Annamayya District.
In W.P(PIL) No.71 of 2022, the petitioner challenges the merger of Ramachandrapuram into newly formed Konaseema District. The contention of the petitioner is that the said area ought to have been a part of Kakinada District.
In all these petitions, the petitioners allege violation of principles of natural justice as also violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. Briefly stated the material facts are as under:
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh was formed in the year 1956 under the States Reorganization Act, 1956. Thereafter, in terms of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014, the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into the newly formed State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh with 13 districts, namely, East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Prakasam, SPSR Nellore, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, Kurnool, Chittoor, YSR Kadapa and Anantapur.
3. According to Section 3 (1) of the Act, the Government may, by notification, for purposes of revenue administration, divide the State into such districts with such limits as may be specified therein and further that each district shall consist of such revenue divisions and each revenue division shall consist of such mandals and each Mandal shall consist of villages as the Government may, by notification from time to time specify in this behalf.
4. In terms of Section 3(2) of the said Act, the Government can also, in the interest of better administration and development of the areas form a new district, revenue division or Mandal by separation of area from any district, revenue division, or mandal or by uniting two or more districts, revenue divisions, or mandals or parts thereof or by uniting any area to a district, revenue division, mandal or part thereof. It can also by issuance of a notification under Section 3(2) of the Act, increase or diminish the area of any district, revenue division or mandal or alter their boundaries or names.
5. Section 3(5) of the Act envisages as under:
'(5) Before issuing any notification under this section, the Government or the [Commissioner of Land Revenue], as the case may be, shall publish in such manner as may be prescribed, the proposals inviting objections or suggestions thereon from the persons residing within the district, revenue division, [mandal] or village who are likely to be affected thereby within such period as may be specified therein, and shall take into consideration the objections or suggestions, if any, received.'
6. Section 4 of the Act entitles the State Government to make rules for carrying out all or any of the purposes of the Act. In exercise of the power so conferred under Section 4(1), the rules namely, the Andhra Pradesh Districts (Formation) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), have been framed. Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules, being relevant to the present controversy, are reproduced hereunder:
3. Matters of consideration in formation of districts etc.:- (1) Where any action is proposed to be taken by the Government under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act or by the Commissioner of Land Revenue under sub-section (4) of that Section, the Gover
