Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAVI S. DHAVAN, A. B. SRIVASTAVA
MANVENDRA SHAH, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 29843 Of 1994
Decided On : 05/31/1995
The High Court of Uttarakhand ruled that the State Government cannot ignore the resolutions of the State Legislature recognizing the identity of the area and the people of Kumaun and Garhwal, their diversity from the rest of the State, and recognition of the legitimate right of the peoples of Kumaun and Garhwal, to a separate State known as Uttarakhand. The Court held that the State Government must give due respect to the resolutions of the State Legislature, if it is clear in its intention and commitment in politics to the peoples of Kumaun and Garhwal.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order implementing a 27% reservation for Backward Classes in admission to schools, colleges, and Universities in the hill regions of Uttar Pradesh. This reservation policy was met with violent protests and agitations in the hill regions of Kumaun and Garhwal, as the people of these regions felt that the reservation policy was not applicable to them due to their unique circumstances and identity. A writ petition was filed in the High Court of Uttarakhand challenging the implementation of the reservation policy in the hill regions.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the State Government's implementation of the reservation policy in the hill regions of Kumaun and Garhwal was in conflict with the resolutions of the State Legislature, which recognized the unique identity and circumstances of these regions and their right to a separate State. The Court found that the State Government's actions were contradictory to the legislature's intent and amounted to a belittlement of the legislature's solemn resolutions. The Court also held that the State Government's reliance on statistics to justify the reservation policy was misplaced, as the statistics did not take into account the unique circumstances and challenges faced by the people of the hill regions.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government can ignore the resolutions of the State Legislature recognizing the identity of the area and the people of Kumaun and Garhwal, their diversity from the rest of the State, and recognition of the legitimate right of the peoples of Kumaun and Garhwal, to a separate State known as Uttarakhand? 2. Whether the State Government's implementation of the reservation policy in the hill regions of Kumaun and Garhwal was in conflict with the resolutions of the State Legislature? 3. Whether the State Government's reliance on statistics to justify the reservation policy was misplaced?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State Government cannot ignore the resolutions of the State Legislature recognizing the identity of the area and the people of Kumaun and Garhwal, their diversity from the rest of the State, and recognition of the legitimate right of the peoples of Kumaun and Garhwal, to a separate State known as Uttarakhand. The Court found that the State Government's actions were contradictory to the legislature's intent and amounted to a belittlement of the legislature's solemn resolutions. The Court also held that the State Government's reliance on statistics to justify the reservation policy was misplaced, as the statistics did not take into account the unique circumstances and challenges faced by the people of the hill regions.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the Court issued a writ of mandamus to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the respondents, directing them to not implement the reservation policy in the hill regions of Kumaun and Garhwal, except as declared and certified by a writ of certiorari on the certificate action brought to the High Court to occasion this judgment.
( 1 ) THIS case is about a dichotomy between the law in its administration as opposed to a unanimous intention of the legislature of Uttra Pradesh in the applicability of that very law. If either of the factors were absent, there would be no occasion for the High Court to examine the issue before it.
( 2 ) THE issue has been raised in more than one writ petition before this Court. The present one is the leading case. The prayers of a like nature in other cases will be met by this judgment.
( 3 ) THE matter relates to the divisions of Kumaun and Garhwal within Uttar Pradesh. The Legislature of Uttar Pradesh has resolved that this region be known as Uttarakhand.
( 4 ) WHATEVER be the course of politics which occasioned the situation, the High Court is not concerned with it. The two Houses of the Legislature in Uttar Pradesh on two occasions passed unanimous resolutions, to the effect that the regions of Kumaun and Garhwal be identified as distinct from the rest of the State and considered to receive autonomy as a State to be known as Uttarakhand. One resolution was passed by the Houses of the State Legislature in 1991 and another in 1994.
( 5 ) ON the resolutions of the Houses of the Legislature, there is no issue. The petitioner relies on it. The State Government does not deny it.
( 6 ) THIS judgment would be incomplete without noticing the two resolutions of the Houses of Legislature in accepting the region of Kumaun and Garhwal as distinct in its identity from the rest of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, the resolutions are :"12-8-1991"motion for establishment of a separate State named Uttaranchal"minister for Finance and Parliamentary Affairs (Sri Rajendra Kumar Gupta) -Sir, With your permission I beg to move the following resolution. "this house recommends to the Central Government that a separate State, to be named Uttaranchal; be established including the districts of Nainital, Almora, Pithoragarh, Pauri Garhwal, Chamoli, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar Kashi and Dehradun of the Kumaon and Garhwal divisions of the State of Uttar Pradesh. "speaker -The question is whether the house agrees that "this house recommends to the Central Government that a separate State, to be named as Uttaranehal, be established including the district of Nainital, Almora, Pithoragarh, Pauri Garhwal, Chamoli, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar Kashi and Dehradun of the Kumaon and Garhwal Divisions of the State of Uttar Pradesh. " (Question put to vote and accepted ). "11. Translated from Hindi. Proceeding of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Authorised Version ). The first session of the Eleventh Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Proceeding Section ). Publisher, Director, The Government Press, Printing and Stationery, Uttar Pradesh (India)-Volume 402, Part 9, 12/08/1991, Page 26. "resolution passed by Legislative Assembly on 24-8-1994 and by Legislative Council on 25-8-1994. ""this house, keeping in view of topographical conditions of hill areas of Uttar Pradesh and special economic and administrative compulsions of that area, is of the definite opinion that a separate State for that area be established. Therefore, this house recommends to the Central Government that "separate State consisting of districts of Nainital, Almora, Pithoragarh, Pauri Garhwal, Chamoli, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar Kashi and Dehradun of the Kumaon and Garhwal Divisions of the State of Uttar Pradesh be formed by the Parliament by enacting a law under Article 3 of the Constitution. "22. Ibid : Volume 413, Part 4, 24/08/1994 Pages 10, 11
( 7 ) THE resolutions of the Houses of Legislature were accepting the reality of an identity in the regions of Kumaon and Garhwal. Easier said than done, the buck was then passed on to the federal Government to fend with the norms of the constitution to accept the regions and the peoples of Kumaon and Garhwal as a distinct identity for Statehood.
( 8 ) AFTER the resolution of the Legislative Assembly in 1991 the State Government wrote and apprise
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
