Back
2014 Supreme(Megh) 165
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, Sudip Ranjan Sen, JJ.
Agnes Kharshiing - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya - Respondent
PIL No. 7/2012
Decided On : 23-07-2014
For the Petitioner: Party-in-Person.
For the Respondents:B.P. Todi, Addl. Advocate General, K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA, S.P. Mahanta, Adv., H.S. Thangkhiew, Sr. Adv. and N. Mozika, Adv.
The allotment of land to the respondent No. 7 in the given case under the policy decision of the Govt. for public welfare comes within the realm of public purpose and would directly or indirectly improves the living standards and means of livelihood of not only the members of the respondent No. 7 but also the public more particularly, the residents of NST and its neighbouring areas.
Headnote:
PIL challenging the policy decision of the Govt. of Meghalaya, for public welfare which directly or indirectly improves the living standards of not only Civil Officers working under the Govt. of Meghalaya but also the residents of New Shillong Township and also neighbouring areas of New Shillong Township (for short 'NST') in issuing the allotment order dated 18.08.2008 for allotting a plot of land measuring 45.01 acres in the NST in favour of the respondent No. 7 i.e. the Civil Services Officers Housing Cooperative Society Limited. The questions call for consideration in the present PIL are (i) whether the allotment of land to the respondent No. 7 under the policy decision of the Govt. of Meghalaya for public welfare is within realm of public purpose? (ii) what is the scope of judicial review for interference if the scheme comes within the realm of public purpose? and; (iii) is the judicial interference permissible when the action of the State Govt. for distribution of State largesse for the public welfare come within the realm of public purpose?
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is the President of the Civil Society Women's Organization (in short 'CSWO'), an N.G.O. having its office at Shillong and registered under the Society Registration Act. Out of the many objects of the CSWO, one is to help women find a voice that would be able to advocate people, create profound policies and alter actions of the State which are not in conformity with the rules laid down as per law. The Govt. of Meghalaya, Urban Affairs Department had acquired 370.26 hectares or 914.54 acres as on 12.03.2007 for NST for provision of infrastructure, housing, institutional, administrative and recreational uses. Priority is to be given for administrative uses of the State Govt. departments and for providing amenities and services. The petitioner came to know on reading the newspaper sometime in the months of February/March, 2012 about allotment of land in favour of the respondent No. 7 in the NST acquired by the Govt. of Meghalaya for public purposes. The petitioner being a social worker and RTI activist was inquisitive to go on details of the news of the allotment of land in favour of the respondent No. 7 and for correct information, the petitioner filed an RTI application dated 26.03.2012 before the Public Information Officer, Urban Affairs Department, Shillong regarding acquisition of land for NST at Mawdiangdiang and the surrounding areas.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the allotment of land to the respondent No. 7 in the given case under the policy decision of the Govt. for public welfare comes within the realm of public purpose and would directly or indirectly improves the living standards and means of livelihood of not only the members of the respondent No. 7 but also the public more particularly, the residents of NST and its neighbouring areas.
Issues: 1. Whether the allotment of land to the respondent No. 7 under the policy decision of the Govt. of Meghalaya for public welfare is within realm of public purpose? 2. What is the scope of judicial review for interference if the scheme comes within the realm of public purpose? 3. Is the judicial interference permissible when the action of the State Govt. for distribution of State largesse for the public welfare come within the realm of public purpose?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. It is fairly settled that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of the petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. 2. The Apex Court in 4(four) cases that ordinarily the Govt. is the best authority to determine if the housing scheme for a limited number of persons could be a public purpose and the need of a section of the public may be a public purpose and it cannot be contended that the housing scheme of a limited members cannot be described as a public purpose. 3. It is the State Govt. who is to decide if the scheme of the State Govt. would directly or indirectly improves living standards or means of livelihood of the public in the State. So long as the scheme comes within realm of public purpose, monies for the schemes are withdrawn with passing appropriate Appropriation Bill. Judicial interference is permissible when action of the Govt. is unconstitutional and not when such action is allegedly not wise.
Final Decision: Writ petition (PIL) is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. By this PIL, the petitioner is challenging the policy decision of the Govt. of Meghalaya, for public welfare which directly or indirectly improves the living standards of not only Civil Officers working under the Govt. of Meghalaya but also the residents of New Shillong Township and also neighbouring areas of New Shillong Township (for short 'NST') in issuing the allotment order dated 18.08.2008 for allotting a plot of land measuring 45.01 acres in the NST in favour of the respondent No. 7 i.e. the Civil Services Officers Housing Cooperative Society Limited. The questions call for consideration in the present PIL are (i) whether the allotment of land to the respondent No. 7 under the policy decision of the Govt. of Meghalaya for public welfare is within realm of public purpose? (ii) what is the scope of judicial review for interference if the scheme comes within the realm of public purpose? and; (iii) is the judicial interference permissible when the action of the State Govt. for distribution of State largesse for the public welfare come within the realm of public purpose?
2. Heard petitioner in person as well as Mr. BP Todi, learned Addl. Advocate General, Meghalaya assisted by Mr. KP Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6, Mr. SP Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. HS Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Mozika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7.
3. Factual Background:- The petitioner is the President of the Civil Society Women's Organization (in short 'CSWO'), an N.G.O. having its office at Shillong and registered under the Society Registration Act. Out of the many objects of the CSWO, one is to help women find a voice that would be able to advocate people, create profound policies and alter actions of the State which are not in conformity with the rules laid down as per law. The Govt. of Meghalaya, Urban Affairs Department had acquired 370.26 hectares or 914.54 acres as on 12.03.2007 for NST for provision of infrastructure, housing, institutional, administrative and recreational uses. Priority is to be given for administrative uses of the State Govt. departments and for providing amenities and services. The petitioner came to know on reading the newspaper sometime in the months of February/March, 2012 about allotment of land in favour of the respondent No. 7 in the NST acquired by the Govt. of Meghalaya for public purposes. The petitioner being a social worker and RTI activist was inquisitive to go on details of the news of the allotment of land in favour of the respondent No. 7 and for correct information, the petitioner filed an RTI application dated 26.03.2012 before the Public Information Officer, Urban Affairs Department, Shillong regarding acquisition of land for NST at Mawdiangdiang and the surrounding areas. The informations demanded by the petitioner under the said RTI application dated 26.03.2012 are:
(i) Total area of land acquired as on date for New Shillong Township.
(ii) Complete list of Departments and Organizations (central and state), Societies, NGOs, individual etc. who have been allotted land by Government in New Shillong Township.
(iii) Photocopies of file notings starting with the receipt of the application from the Secretary of the RESPONDENT NO. 7, Civil Services Officers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (RESPONDENT NO. 7), Meghalaya, for allotment of land at new shillong township leading decision to allot the land.
(iv) Copy of the Cabinet's decision dated 9 August 2007 which authorizes the allotment of land to the RESPONDENT NO. 7.
(v) Copy of Revenue Department Memorandum No. RDS/79/86/35(a) dated June, 1989.
(vi) Copy of the Revenue Department letter No. RDS.37/88/144 dated 22 May 1992.
(vii) Copy of Chief Secretary's decision taken in March 2010 that member of RESPONDENT NO. 7 would be given plots of up to 10,000 sq. ft.
(viii) Copy of letter of Principal Secretary, Urban Affairs G
