B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The present public interest litigation has been filed by the residents of Sadak-Arjuni, praying for quashing and setting the Notification dated 26.07.2013 issued by respondent no.1 in respect of location of Sub Division at Morgaon-Arjuni.

3. The petitioners are the residents of Sadak-Arjuni in Gondia district. In the year 2000, Gondia district was carved out from the erstwhile Bhandara district, After carving out Gondia district from Bhandara, it has 8 talukas. It had only two Sub-Divisions viz. Gondia and Deori. Gondia Sub-Division was consisting of four Talukas i.e. Tiroda, Morgaon-Arjuni, Goregaon and Gondia, whereas Deori Sub Division was consisting of Deori, Sadak-Arjuni, Amgaon and Sakekasa talukas. There was demand from various quarters for having more Sub-Divisions. In response to the said demand, the State Government published a Notification on 26/28th June, 2012 in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for short) thereby proposing to constitute a separate Sub-Division for the talukas of Sadak-Arjuni and Morgaon-Arjuni and notifying the location of the said Sub-Division to be at Sadak-Arjuni. However, by the final Notification dated 26.07.2013 though the separate Sub-Division has been constituted for the Talukas of Sadak-Arjuni and Morgaon-Arjuni, the location of the headquarter is notified at Morgaon Arjuni and not at Sadak-Arjuni.

Being aggrieved thereby, the present public interest litigation is filed.

4. Heard Mr. Samarth, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.M. Ukey, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents/State and Mr. H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for the intervenors who are the residents of Arjuni-Morgaon Taluka and are supporting the location of the headquarter of the Sub-Division at Morgaon-Arjuni.

5. Mr. Samarth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that once a draft notification provided that the headquarter of the Sub-Division would be at Sadak-Arjuni, it was not permissible for the State Government to change the same and notify the headquarter at Morgaon-Arjuni. The learned counsel submits that this would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submits that as a matter of fact the Collector, Gondia had recommended the establishment of the headquarter of the Sub-Division at Sadak-Arjuni. However, the State Government by ignoring the same, has established the headquarter at Morgaon-Arjuni. The learned counsel submits that this has been done in a mala fide manner under the influence of politicians from the Morgaon-Arjuni area. The learned counsel on merits submits that taking into consideration the geographical situation of Sadak-Arjuni, Sadak-Arjuni is the most convenient place for establishment of the headquarter. The learned counsel relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Bhikubhai Vithlabhai Patel and ors vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 144 and in the case of Baldev Singh and others vs. State of H.P. And others reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1239 and on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Babusaheb Ghiramkar .vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2013(6) Mh.L.J. 703, in the case of Ashok Ganapat Jadhav and another .vs. State Election Commission, Mumbai reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J.150, in the case of Maidain Bacchav Samiti and ors. vs. Ramchandra Padmakar Vaidya Hall Trust and ors. reported in 2011 Vol. 113(2) Bom. L.R. 1280.

6. As against this, the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Ukey and Mr. Dangre, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors submit that the powers exercised by the State Government are legislative in nature. It is, therefore, submitted that the prin