Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—With the change of Government, the creation of new districts has become a routine feature in the State of Uttar Pradesh that too, without adverting to financial viability and necessity. Ordinarily, decisions are political to perpetuate legacy of political parties.

2. Similar is the case in hand referred by the Division Bench of this Court relating to constitution of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar (in short CSM Nagar).

3. On account of conflicting judgment with regard to right of State Government to create districts, a Division Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J. and Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.), has framed three (3) questions and referred the same to the Larger Bench. In terms thereof, Hon’ble the Chief Justice has constituted the present Bench. The questions referred by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.3.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 10159 (M/B) of 2010 and three other connected writ petitions, are as under:

(i) Whether the issuance of notification under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act by the Governor is legislative act or administrative act.

(ii) Alternatively, if the exercise of statutory power under Section 11 is held to be legislative act, then whether the impugned notification can be held to be violative of the directives issued by the Central Government under rule 8(iv) of the Census Rules, 1990, in view of Article 246(1) of the Constitution and, therefore, invalid.

(iii) Whether in view of the fact that there is no apparent inconsistency in the two Acts, namely, Census Act, 1948 (Central enactment) and the U.P. Land Revenue Act (State enactment), the inconsistency which has arisen because of the exercise of executive power by the State under the State Act would be an inconsistency within the meaning of Article 246 read with Article 254 of the Constitution.

I- BRIEF FACTS

4. CSM Nagar was created by the Notification dated 21.5.2003, issued under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short the Act) read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (in short General Clauses Act), by His Excellency, the Governor of the State of U.P. The Notification was challenged in this Court by preferring Writ Petition No. 5027 (M/B) of 2003 [Nagarjun Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P. and others]. A Division Bench of this Court by an interim order dated 9.10.2003, stayed the operation of notification keeping in view the earlier Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Ram Milan Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (17) LCD 323.

5. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 5027 (M/B) of 2003 filed by Nagarjun Prasad Gupta (supra), the State of U.P. decided to abolish new district hence, a Notification dated 13.11.20003 was issued under Section 11 of the Act read with Section 21 of General Clauses Act. The Notification dated 13.11.2003 is being reproduced as under :

ÞmŸkj Áns'k ljdkj

jktLo vuqHkkx&5

la[;k 3122@1-5-2003&181&2002&jk&5

y[kuÅ] 13 uoEcj] 2003

vf/klwpuk

i0 vk0&606

mŸkj Áns'k lk/kkj.k [k.M vf/kfu;e] 1904 ¼mŸkj Áns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k 1 lu~`````````````````````````` 1904½ dh /kkjk 21 ds lkFk ifBr ;w0 ih0 yS.M jsosU;w ,sDV] 1901 ¼;w0ih0 ,sDV la[;k&3 lu~ 1901½ dh /kkjk 11 ds v/khu 'kfDr dk Á;ksx djds vkSj N=ifr 'kkgwth egkjkt uxj ds uke ls u;s ftys ds l`tu ds lEcU/k esa bl fufeŸk tkjh ljdkjh vf/klwpuk la[;k lh0,y0&17@1-5-2003&181&2002&jk&5] fnukad 21 ebZ] 2003 dk vf/kØe.k djds jkT;iky mDr ftyk N=ifr 'kkgwth egkjkt uxj dks lekIr djrs gSa vkSj bl vf/klwpuk ds xtV esa Ádkf'kr gksus ds fnukad ls vuqlwph&,d vkSj nks esa Øe'k% mfYyf[kr Ns=ksa dks lekfo"V djrs gq, fo|eku ftyk jk;cjsyh vkSj lqyrkuiqj dh lhekvksa dks ifjofrZr djrs gSaA

vuqlwph&,d vuqlwph&nks

1- fryksbZ 1- vesBh

2- lyksu 2- xkSjhxat

3- txnh'kiqj

ds fo/kku lHkk fuokZpu ds fo/kku lHkk fuokZpu

{ks=ksa esa lekfo"V fd;s {ks=ksa esa lekfo"V fd;s

x;s ftyk jk;cjsyh ds x;s ftyk jk;cjsyh ds

jktLo xzkeA jktLo xzkeA

vkKk ls]

Vh0ih