http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1272 of 2002

PETITIONER: State of U.P. & Ors

RESPONDENT: Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL No.  1272  OF 2002

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.  The controversy  related to creation of a new district i.e. Baghpat in the State of  Uttar Pradesh.

2.      By the impugned order the High Court disposed of the  writ petition as follows:

"In view of the order passed in W.P. No.  5004 of 1999 Mohd. Tariq v. State of U.P.  no  further order is required in this petition.   Petition is disposed of."

3.      Since the order is practically unreasoned, it is necessary  to take note of the factual background.  On 15.9.1997 a  Notification was issued under Section 11 of the U.P. Land  Revenue Act,1901 (in short the ’Act’) read with Section 21 of  the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (in short the  ’General Clauses Act’).  The Governor directed creation of a  new District by the name of Baghpat with effect from the date  of publication of the Notification.  A Writ Petition No. 9085 of  1999 was filed challenging the aforesaid Notification.  There  were essentially two prayers i.e. one was to quash the  Notification dated 15.9.1997 and the other not to permit  Baghpat District to continue.  A Writ Petition Civil Misc. No.  39756 of 1998 had been filed wherein creation of a new  District "Sant Kabir Nagar" was challenged in Ram Milan  Sukla & Ors.   By order dated 15.1.1999 a Division Bench of  the High Court quashed the Notification dated 9.11.1998 and  directed a fresh consideration.  The operative portion of the  judgment reads as follows: "On the facts and circumstances of the case,  we allow this petition, quash the order dated  9.11.1998 and direct the State Government to  reconsider the matter and decided whether  there was any good administrative and  financial grounds to issue the notification  dated 5.9.1997 for creation of Sant Kabir  district.  If the State Government again decides

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

to continue Sant Kabir Nagar and other  districts created by the previous Government  then it must introduce a bill in the State  Legislature for this purpose.  Until and unless  such a bill is introduced and passed the  notification dated 5.9.1997 shall remain in  abeyance."

4.      The matter was carried to this Court in SLP(C)No. CC  1384/1999 and by order dated 26.3.1999 this Court  dismissed the writ petition noting as follows:         "Permission to file SLP is granted in  Special Leave Petition\005\005\005(CC 1364/99).

Looking to the facts and circumstances  as set out by the High Court in the impugned  judgment, no intervention is called for under  Article 136.  Hence the Special Leave Petitions  are dismissed."

5.      In the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9085 of 1999 to which  the present dispute relates, counter affidavit was filed on  16.3.1999.  Another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5004 of 1999  was filed before the High Court challenging the creation of  Kausambi District.  The said writ petition was disposed of by  order dated 12.4.1999 with reference to the order passed by  the High Court in Ram Milan Shukla’s  case referred to above.

6.      Learned Advocate General of the State submitted before  the High Court when the writ petition was being heard that  the Government will comply with the orders of the High Court  made in Ram Milan Shukla’s case.  It was further stated that  Budgetary provisions have been made in respect of certain  districts and the budget has been presented and passed.  It  was further stated that certain districts created by the  previous Government were being retained while others were  not.

7.      The Division Bench noted that the facts of the said case  were covered by the Division Bench’s judgment in Ram Milan’s  case decided on 15.1.1999.  However the High Court made  certain observations which we feel were not necessary to be  made while dealing with the writ petition.  They related to the  District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police and other  officials of the District living at Allahabad and it was also  noted that similar was the position in the case of Sant Kabir  Nagar’s officials.  These observations about where the officer  should stay and similar other observations really had no  relevance.  When the writ petition to which this case relates  i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9085 of 1999 was taken up,  the High Court as noted above disposed of the same with  reference to Mohan Tariq’s case i.e.  Writ Petition No. 5004 of  1999.  It is relevant to note that on 7.1.2000 the Cabinet of  the State Government took the following decisions: "The Cabinet decision dated 7.1.2000 as  contained in the original letter dated 10.1.2000 of  the Joint Secretary (Confidential) issued on behalf of  the Chief Secretary and Cabinet Secretary states  that ;

"Cabinet in its meeting dated  10.1.2000 after discussion decided  that new districts and Divisions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

created in the year 1997 shall be  continued as it is and with regard to  them further steps as necessary  regarding placing of Ordinance/Bill be  taken."

8.      It appears that there was a contempt petition filed before  the High Court i.e. Contempt Petition No. 1449 of 1999 in  CMWP No. 39756/1998 which was disposed of inter-alia with  the following observations:

       "In supplementary counter affidavit filed  by Ajit Kumar Shahu, Secretary, Revenue  Department of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, dated  13.3.2002, it has been stated that pursuant to  the judgment of this Court, the Cabinet had  constituted a sub-Committee under the  Chairmanship of Revenue Minister regarding  the consideration of utility, viability and  expenditure along with facilities of public in  general, which submitted a report and it was  decided that the new Districts and  Commissionery constituted and established in  the year 1997 shall be retained and continued  as it is.  The decision of the Cabinet dated  7.1.2000 as circulated, is also filed as  Annexure SCA \026II to the supplementary  counter affidavit.  It is also the supplementary  counter affidavit.  It is also stated that in view  of the decision of the Cabinet based on the  report of the Sub-Committee, and passing of  the regular annual financial statements  (Budget appropriation Bill, the order dated  15.1.1999 is complied with. Thus in view of the averment made in the  supplementary counter affidavit, the Court is  not inclined to proceed any further in the  contempt proceedings.  The notice earlier  issued is discharged and the contempt petition  is dismissed."

9.      Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that  the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous.  In  matters of policy- decision like creation of a District/State, the  High Court should not have interfered and that too on wholly  irrelevant grounds.  So far as Ram Milan’s case is concerned  this Court did not interfere because there was a direction for  re-consideration.  The re-consideration has been done and the  decision of the Cabinet has been taken on 7.1.2000.

10.     Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that  creation of a district should not be done in a routine manner  and the High Court has rightly taken note of several factors.   11.     In Ram Milan’s case the High Court had directed re- consideration which apparently has been done as is evident  from the Cabinet’s decision.

12.     Cabinet’s decision was taken nearly eight years back and  appears to be operative.  That being so there is no scope for  directing reconsideration as was done in Ram Milan’s case,  though learned counsel for the respondents prayed that such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

a direction should be given. As rightly contended by learned  counsel for the State, in matters of policy decisions, the scope  of interference is extremely limited.  The policy decision must  be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy  should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from  different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of  discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of  fundamental right is not shown. Courts will have no occasion  to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute  its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such  matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the  government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is  possible from that of the Government.  

13.     The appeal is accordingly disposed of.