Harishchandra M. v. State of Kerala & Others

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM # PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY THURSDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WA NO. 1536 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 26650/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19.3.2014 ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER: HARISHCHANDRA M., 'PARAG', CHANAKYA NAGAR, HOSABETTU VILLAGE MANJESHWAR-671 323, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SMT.O.V.BINDU SRI.NISHIL.P.S. SRI.J.VIMAL ## RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: - 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (F) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. - 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 121. - 3 P.B. ABDUL RAZACK, M.L.A.MANJESHWAR, C.H.SOUDHAM, UPPALA PO, KASARAGOD, PIN-671322 - 4 T.A. MOOSA, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT SHANTHODI HOUSE, P.O. UPPALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.G.P. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 1536 OF 2014 :: 2 :: ## JUDGMENT Dated this the 17[th] day of November 2022 ## S.MANIKUMAR, C.J. This writ appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 19.3.2014 in W.P.(C)No.26650 of 2013 by which, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner is the appellant in this writ appeal. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P5 Government Order G.O.(MS)No.348/13/RD dated 23.8.2013 whereby, the State Government accorded sanction to shift the Headquarters of Manjeswar Taluk from Manjeswar to Uppala. Prior to the issuance of Ext.P5 Government Order, there were only two Taluks in Kasargod District, namely, Kasaragod and Hosdurg Taluks. The Government issued Ext.P1 order constituting 12 new Taluks in the State. It was notified that the villages to be included in the newly formed Taluks and the Headquarters of the respective Taluks will be notified in due course on getting the proposal in that WA NO. 1536 OF 2014 :: 3 :: regard from the Commissioner, Land Revenue. It was following the recommendation of the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Ext.P2 Gazette Notification was issued notifying the Headquarters and the number of villages to be included in the respective Taluks. Except the Chalakudy Taluk, the Headquarters of which was notified as Thrissur, all other Taluks have notified as its Headquarters the Town bearing the name of the Taluk. It appears that the 3[rd] respondent, the Local M.L.A. submitted Ext.P3 representation before the District Collector informing that there are objections to the fixation of Manjeshwaram as the Headquarters of the newly formed Manjeshwaram Taluk and another suitable location is to be identified and reported to the Government for taking further steps. The District Collector thereon furnished Ext.P4 report to the Government recommending Uppala Town as the Headquarters and the Government issued Ext.P5 notification changing the Headquarters of Manjeshwaram Taluk from Manjeshwaram to Uppala. WA NO. 1536 OF 2014 :: 4 :: 3. Writ court, after considering the various factual and legal contentions raised in the Writ Petition, dismissed the same mainly holding that it is a policy decision of the Government and no interference under Article 226 is warranted. 4. Operative portion of the judgment dated 19.3.2014 reads thus: “10. One of the aspects noticed by the District Collector as also by the third respondent is that the Headquarters of newly formed Manjeswram Taluk is at the northern tip of the District and it would cause inconvenience to the residents of Manjeswaram Taluk. The District Collector had also reported that it would be more convenient to the public if the Headquarters of the newly formed Manjewaram Taluk is shifted to Uppala. The Government considered the said report and issued Ext.P5 order. Challenging the very same Government order the President of the Development Action Committee, Manjeswaram Panchayat area of which the petitioner is the Vice President had earlier moved this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.22133 of 2013. The Division Bench held that in the absence of any material before it that Uppala town is not an ideal place which is convenient to the public as indicated in the letter of the District Collector, and formation of Taluks and location of Headquarters is a policy decision of the Government, no interference is called for. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Having regard to the facts stated above as also the views expressed by the District Collectors of Kasaragod WA NO. 1536 OF 2014 :: 5 :: District who were in Office in the year 2006 and 2012 respectively, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Government to shift the Headquarters from Manjeswaram to Uppala is in any way arbitrary. The Apex Court has in 1988 AIR 1681 held as follows: It will serve no useful purpose to delineate the facts in all the cases which follow more or less on the same lines. We are of the opinion that the High Court had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the State Government to locate the Mandal Headquarters at a particular place. The decision to locate such Headquarters at a particular village is dependent upon various factors. The High Court obviously could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters. In some of the cases the High Court declined to interfere same that the Government was the best Judge fo the situation in the matter of location of Mandal Headquarters. However, in a few cases the High Court while quashing the impugned notifications for location of Mandal Headquarters issued under sub-s.(5) of S.3 of the Act on the ground that there was a breach of the guidelines, directed the Government to reconsider the question after hearing the parties. 11. It was held that the High Court could not evaluate for itself the comparative merits of a particular place as against the other for location of the Mandal Headquarters. The Apex Court also held that in paragraph 30 of the aforesaid decision that though there were guidelines governing the formation of new Mandals and location of Mandal Headquarters as they did not have any statutory WA NO. 1536 OF 2014 :: 6 :: force they did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the petitioner. In the light of the binding decision of the Apex Court and the principles laid down therein, I am of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the impugned order. As held by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.22133 of 2013, the location of Headquarters of the newly formed Taluks is a matter of administrative policy of the Government and this Court cannot at the instance of the petitioner sit in appeal over the wisdom of the decision of the Government. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.” 5. Challenging the above judgment of the writ court, appellant preferred this writ appeal and contended that there was no Government building available at Uppala to house the Taluk Office or other Government offices connected thereto. It is in rented building, the Taluk office was opened with hectic speed upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge. So far, no Government land is identified for locating the Taluk office. According to the appellant, no Government land is available at Uppala for construction of the Taluk Office Buildings as contended by the respondents. Another contention raised by the appellant is that the writ petition was filed as a Public Interest WA NO. 1536 OF 2014 :: 7 :: Litigation and no supporting documents are produced for the challenge to Ext.P5 Government Order. 6. Appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others v Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another reported in (2001) 8 SCC 491 wherein the court held that, where the decision of the authority in regard to a policy matter the courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinize whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and that the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record. "Any decision, be it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision, if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. If it is so then be it a policy decision or otherwise, it will be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution". 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. WA NO. 1536 OF 2014 :: 8 :: 8. Earlier, in a connected writ petition i.e., W.P. (C)No.22133 of 2013, Hon’ble Division Bench of this court declined to interfere with the matter since formation of Taluks and also fixing of the Head Quarters at a particular place is the policy decision of the Government. 9. Operative portion of the judgment in W.P. (C)No.22133 of 2013 dated 5.9.2022 is reproduced hereunder: “4. No doubt, on the basis of Revenue Commissioner's report earlier, formation of Taluk came to be made by Ext.P3 locating the Head Quarters of the Taluk. But the Collector being in charge of a district, who is the Revenue head as well of a district, would be definitely acquainted with the factual situation. Therefore, in the absence of any material placed before us that Uppala town cannot be the ideal place being convenient to the public as indicated in the letter of the Collector, we fail to understand what other materials the petitioner can have to persuade us to opine that the decision of the Government on the report of the District Collector is arbitrary and illegal. 5. Since formation of Taluks and also fixing of the Head Quarters at a particular place is the policy decision of the Government, we decline to interfere with the decision of the Government at WA NO. 1536 OF 2014 :: 9 :: Ext.P4 in the absence of any compelling circumstances to opine that the action of the Government is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 10. The issue raised in the writ appeal is challenging the policy decision of the Government. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.22133 of 2013 dated 5.9.2022 and finding no infirmity in the judgment impugned in this writ appeal i.e., W.P.(C)No.26650/2013 dated 19.3.2014, we decline to interfere with the matter. Appeal fails. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed. sd/S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE jes