Honble PRASAD, J.–The petitioner, Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, an Association of the Advocates Practising at Jodhpur, has moved certain writ petitions. In these writ petitions, the petitioner Association has prayed that the Principal Seat/Bench/circuit Benches of the various Tribunals be established at Jodhpur. The prayer made in various writ petitions is delineated hereinbelow:

S.No. Writ Petition Prayer made for establishment of

1. 1486/1998 Principal Seat of the Board of Revenue at Jodhpur.

2. 1167/1998 Rajasthan State Transport Appellate Tribunal

3. 1485/1998 Rajasthan Cooperative Tribunal

4. 1622/1998 Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institution Tribunal

5. 1238/1998 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(2). For the purposes of deciding the controversy, the facts relating to the demand for establishment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Jodhpur are taken into consideration.

(3). According to the petitioner, it is deeply concerned about the balanced development of the State, particularly Western Rajasthan which had been the subject-matter of neglect by all the Governments of the State. The petitioner has averred that at the time of formation of the State of Rajasthan and reorganisation of the State, it was principally agreed that the Jaipur shall be the political capital and Jodhpur shall be the judicial capital. The claim of Jodhpur is stated on the basis that this is the second largest city of the State.

(4). It has been stated in the writ petition that initially understanding of keeping an unified High Court at Jodhpur was given effect to, but subsequently for certain vested and political reasons the High Court was bifurcated. Importance which Jodhpur deserved was not given to it. It has been contended that on account of continued neglect of this region, regional imbalance has resulted into dissatisfaction and frustration of the public. It has also resulted in the increased dissatisfaction in the border districts of the border State of the country. By continued neglect of the executive and in political circles there has virtually been no development in the city of Jodhpur and its adjoining areas.

(5). A circuit bench of the Board of Revenue has been constituted at Jodhpur but its seatings are only occasional. There being no regular bench of the Board of Revenue at Jodhpur great inconvenience has been caused to the litigants of western Rajasthan. The petitioner has contended that since the principal seat of the High Court is situated at Jodhpur. It being the judicial capital of the State the principal seat of the Board of Revenue should also be established at Jodhpur. Not establishing the Board of Revenue at Jodhpur is in contravention of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India (1).

(6). The case of the petitioner further is that having recognised Jodhpur to be the judicial capital of the State, as and when any court was created in the State, it should have been established at Jodhpur. But due to continued political and executive neglect the border districts like Jodhpur has been neglected. It has resulted in imbalanced development of the State. The petitioners further case is that the respondents action is arbitrary and unreasonable. Under the Constitution the State Government is obliged to provide remedy to the litigants at their door steps. By not constituting the Board or atleast a Bench of the Board of Revenue at Jodhpur, the State failed to discharge its constitutional obligation.

(7). The State of Rajasthan has submitted in its written reply that the case of the petitioner is based on wild allegations. The State has contended that the petitioner Association being of the Advocates have made allegations of vested and political reasons. Such allegations are not supported by facts. Making of such allegations of imbalance development, according to the respondent, appear to be motivated politically. No discrimination has been made by the State as far as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document