Collectorate Bar Association vs State Of U.P. & Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 5245 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

										   AFR
 
										Reserved
 
	Civil Misc. Writ Petition (P.I.L.) No. 22757 of 2008.
 
Collectorate Bar Association, Etah.	........		Petitioner.
 
					Versus
 
State of U.P. and others.	........	........		Respondents.
 
					With:
 
	Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  46428 of 2010.
 
Juginder Singh Yadav.	.......		........		Petitioner.
 
					Versus
 
The State of U.P. and others.........	........		Respondents.	
 
					----------

Present:

Hon. Mr. Justice Amitava Lala, Acting Chief Justice, &

Hon. Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel.

Appearance:

[In W.P. (PIL) No. 22757 of 2008]

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Nandan, Sr. Advocate,

Mr. S.P.S. Rathore.

For the State-Respondents : Mr. R.K. Saxena,

Standing Counsel.

For the Intervenors/

respondent nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. H.M. Srivastava, &

Mr. Neeraj Srivastava.

[In W.P. No. 46428 of 2010]

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Srivastava.

For the State-Respondents : Mr. R.K. Saxena,

Standing Counsel.

For the Respondent No. 4-

State Election Commission : Mr. P.K. Mishra.

For the Intervenor/

respondent no. 5 : Mr. S.P.S. Rathore.

--------

Amitava Lala, ACJ.-- Both the aforesaid writ petitions have been heard together as the fate of the second writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 46428 of 2010 depends upon the result of the first writ petition i.e. 22757 of 2008. Therefore, firstly we take the first writ petition for consideration.

So far as first writ petition is concerned, Collectorate Bar Association, Etah through its President has filed this writ petition in the form of public interest litigation. According to the petitioner, on 15th April, 2008 the then Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh made a public announcement that henceforth Tehsil Kasganj will be a separate district in the name of Sri Kanshi Ram. Pursuant to the aforesaid public announcement, on 17th April, 2008 notification has been issued by the State Government creating a new district called as Kanshi Ram Nagar by carving out Tehsils Kasganj and Patiyali and Block Soron from District Etah. Challenging such notification dated 17th April, 2008 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and also sought for a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding any further towards bifurcation of District Etah pursuant to the impugned notification. The ground of challenge is that before issuance of notification by the State Government for creation of new revenue District Kanshi Ram Nagar necessary budget and infrastructure was not provided. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has relied upon the judgements reported in 1999 JIR 453 (All) : 1999 (1) AWC 723 (Ram Milan Shukla and others Vs. State of U.P. and othres) and 2008 (5) SCC 550 (State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and another).

On 15th December, 2009 a Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order recording the submissions of the parties, as follows:

"In this public interest litigation the Collectorate Bar Association, Etah has prayed for quashing the notification dated 17.4.2008 issued by the State Government for creation of revenue district Kanshi Ram Nagar on the grounds that the necessary budget and infrastructure was not provided before notifying the revenue district creating serious anomalies and difficulties for the residents of the district. The petitioner has relied upon Ram Milan Shukla Vs. State of U.P., 1999 (1) AWC 723 and State of U.P. Vs. Choudhary Ranvir Singh, (208) 5 SCC 550 in support of their submissions.

In the supplementary counter affidavit of Shri Anand Prakash Upadhyaya presently posted as Joint Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P. it is stated that there is no violation of Art.204 and 205 of the Constitution of India. There was specific provisions in the budget 2008-09 relating to the establishment and other necessary expenses for the district. An amount of Rs.263.30 crores has been earmarked. For the essential expenditure towards newly created district the Board of Revenue, U.P. has sanctioned budget and total amount of Rs.4.07 crores has been earmarked for the year 2008-09. No amount was initially withdrawn from the contingency fund of the State. The other budgetary provisions have been given in para 7 of the counter affidavit.

Shri H.M. Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the Kasganj Bar Association and Democratic Bar Association, Kasganj states that the new building of the district judiciary was inaugurated after Shri Aditya Nath Mittal was appointed as officer on special duty, Kanshi Ram Nagar by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court and has annexed various photograph of the building and the inauguration ceremony. The officers and staff have been appointed and that district judiciary functioning from new district with the officer on special duty, two Addl. Civil Judges and a Chief Judicial Magistrate, a Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge (JD).

The petitioner insists that the necessary infrastructure has not been created. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police are still sitting in the office of Nagar Palika. There are no residence provided and that all the senior officers are still residing in Distt. Etah. The District Judge and officers are working in the hurriedly renovated and old court building without any proper accommodation. About 1 1/2 years has passed but there is no infrastructure and arrangement for the office and staff of the officers and employees.

Shri Jafar Naiyer, learned Addl. Advocate General states that he will file an affidavit giving the entire status of the budget, number of officers, offices constructed and the residences and also inform the Court about the steps taken for acquiring the land and construction of building.

List this case on 15.1.2010. We feel constrained to observe that if the State Government has not taken any effective steps for creating infrastructure and establishment of district office and Court rooms, suitable to the status and function of the office of the District Judge and other judicial officers so far, the Court may consider to stay the notification on the next date.

A copy of the order be given to the Chief Standing Counsel."

On 05th September, 2012, when the matter was placed before this Bench, following order was passed:

"Rejoinder filed today be kept with the record.

In a surprise situation this public interest litigation has come before us. It is in respect of creation of a district namely Kanshi Ram Nagar, which has now been named as Kasganj, carving out the same from the district Etah. Several affidavits and photographs were filed before this Court from which it appears that insufficiency is there in respect of infrastructure. This has also been observed by a Division Bench of this Court at the time of hearing the matter, vide an order passed on 15.12.2009.

We have gone through the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in [1999 JIR 453 (All)] (Ram Milan Shukla & Ors. Versus State of U.P. & Ors.), wherein it has been held that creation of a new district is an administrative act under Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act yet such administrative powers must be exercised on relevant considerations and not arbitrarily. It was further held that before creating a district a serious exercise must be carried out about the available financial resources and an infrastructure must be created otherwise it will be putting the cart before the horse. Till the infrastructure facilities have been arranged and worked out, the decision to create a new district cannot and ought not to be implemented, and the notification under Section 11 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act should not be issued. Further to bring about transparency in administration, the Government must disclose the compelling administrative, political and economic compulsions for taking such a decision.

According to us a recent trend is there to get a political mileage by carving out and creating a new district without any infrastructure as it has been pointed out in this writ petition. Therefore, we want to know by further affidavits on the part of the respondents as to what is the present situation in connection with the financial resources available and infrastructure and also transparency in administration and what was the compelling circumstances to create such district.

We also find that in this State not only this district but several other have also been carved out. The public interest litigation cannot be restricted only in isolation, therefore, there is every possibility that in case of any insufficiency in reply on the part of the Government, it may extend the scope of this public interest litigation to all the districts carved out in the similar manner. Presently, we are of the view that there should be a report of the concerned District Judge before this Court under a sealed cover in respect of the aforesaid issue. However, further orders likely to be passed will be passed on the next date considering all the pros and cons.

In any event, neither of the parties are estopped from filing their affidavits, if any, to apprise us about the present scenario.

The matter will appear once again on 19th September, 2012. A copy of the order will be given to the Registrar General of this Court to send a copy of the same to the concerned District Judge to file such report, as aforesaid."

From the supplementary affidavit dated 23rd January, 2010 filed by Sri Anand Prakash Upadhyaya, Joint Secretary, Revenue, Government of U.P., Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, on behalf of the State-respondents, we find that such affidavit has been filed giving the entire status of the budget, number of officers, offices constructed and the residences and also the steps taken for acquiring the land and construction of building, as was directed in the order dated 15th December, 2009 passed by this Court. In that regard, it has been categorically stated in such affidavit as follows:

"1) Judiciary:-

A. That at present in the district total 11 posts have been created for District and Session Judge and 10 posts have been created for Civil Judge (Senior Division). Six posts have been created for Chief Judicial Magistrate and for Judicial Magistrate 6 posts have been created. For the Civil Judge (Junior Division) total 9 posts have been created and for the administrative work in the district Judgeship 51 posts have been created total 93 posts are sanctioned at present for the newly created district the Govt. order dated 18 Sept. 2008 would clearly reflected that total 93 posts have been sanctioned in this regard. A photocopy of the order dated 18 Sept. 2008 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SCA-1 to this affidavit.

B. It is relevant to mention here that for the regular establishment of residential houses total 49.71 acre land is earmarked at Tehsil- Kashganj, Pargana Vilram Mauza Mamo. The acquisition proceeding has already commenced, whereas the State Govt. vide Govt. order dated 12.01.2010 had already sanctioned the amount of Rs.42,69,529/- 10% acquisition charges and another 10% acquisition amount of Rs.42,69,529/- total amount of Rs.85,39,058/- had sanctioned. A photocopy of the Govt. Order dated 12.01.2010 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SCA-2 to this affidavit.

C. That the counsel of the petitioner had heavily relied that no necessary infrastructure had been created at the district level and the District Judge and Judicial Officers are working in the hurriedly renovated and old Court building without any proper accommodation. In response it is respectfully submitted that before creation of the new district there was already inexistence of Additional and Session Judge, Court and other 4 subordinate Courts. In addition on 10th March 2000 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vashisht Kumar Chaturvedi (then Administrative Judge) had inaugurated the said building the total area of the Court Campus is approximately 9320 Square meter (2.30 acre) and total covered area is 3047 Square meter and at present in the said campus 10 Courts are working in separate Courts each Court room is approximately 92.16 Square meter. In the same premises there is also Jail for the prisoner those are brought for an appearance the same is approximately 52 Square meter. It is respectfully submitted that there is also room for Senior Prosecuting Officer, Retiring Room, Accounts Office, Central Nazarath Room, Library, Model Bar Association Room, there is also computer room these are all in very good condition there is also residential Houses for the Judicial Officers in the same campus which consist of 6 residences for Type IV, 3 residences for Type-II and 3 residences for Type-I, in which the Judicial Officers are residing. And at present the District and Session Judge are residing in the P.W.D. Guest House. For the security purpose of the campus 24 hours P.A.C. is also stationed, there is also very high wall around the campus.

It is highly important to mention here that on 19 Sept. 2008 Sri Aditya Nath Mittal was appointed as Officer on Special Duty. Thereafter, after getting the complete infrastructure for smooth running of the District Court, the then District Judge and Session Judge on 24 December 2008 had given permission for running the Court in the said premises. For the smooth functioning of the newly created District Court the Hon'ble High Court vide letter dated 02.02.2009 and 06 October, 2009 had transferred the total 116 employees and all the employees had joined their duty. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the entire facilities as well as infrastructure is fully being provided at the District Judgeship and is no hardship to any judicial officers. The relevant photographs and also would clearly reveal to this Hon'ble Court that all the Court rooms are sufficiently big and is good conditions and judicial work is being conducted smooth manner and also to any litigants. The original copy of the photographs are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SCA-3 to this affidavit.

3. Revenue Department:-

The office of the District Magistrate, at present is running from the office of Nagar Palika Parishad, Kashganj, whereas two storey newly constructed Houses is situated in area of 20,173.23 square foot from the said building the work of the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate and other Administrative Officers are continuing from the said building and it is further relevant to mention here that the office of Chief Development Officer, Project Officer, District Development Officer, District Election Officer, District Panchasthani Election Office, District Board Office, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Stamp Commissioner etc. are also running in very smooth manner from the newly created District.

It is highly important to mention here that the full-fledged establishment of the District Headquarters (Collectorate), total area of 7.854 Hect. is identified of the Energy Department, the meeting was headed by Chief Secretary on 14.12.2009 by which the Energy Department was agreed to transfer the land to the Revenue Department. It is highly important to mention here that on 05.01.2010 the Energy Department had also handed over the actual physical possession to the Revenue Department for establishment of full-fledged District Collectorate and for the establishment of residential and office purpose, the demand has also been submitted for coming budged. It is further submitted that for the establishment of Headquarter Collectorate another land of 20.833 Hect. land is also under process to acquire at Mauza Jakharudrapur from the farmers. The transfer of the possession letter of Energy Department is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SCA-4 to this affidavit.

It is categorically submitted that at present there is no scarcity of any residences accommodation for officials and at present the State Govt. had already sanctioned 28 posts for the District Headquarter. The photocopies of the Govt. Orders dated 3 July, 2008 and 11.01.2010 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. SCA 5 & 6 to this affidavit.

4. Home Department:-

A) At present after the creation of the new District the State Govt. vide Govt. order dated 23.01.2009 had provided the following Prosecution Officer:-

1. Senior Prosecuting Officer 1 Post.

		2.	Prosecuting Officer 			1 Post.
 
	3.	Senior Assistant 				1 Post.
 
	4.	Class-IV					1 Post.
 

 
		In addition 6 Assistant Prosecuting Officer had also been transferred from District Etah to the newly created Kanshiram Nagar. 
 

 
B)	For the establishment of Police Line at the District level the process has also for acquisition of the land from Fishery Department and at present the Police Line is working through District Govt. Polytechnic. 
 

 
C)	It is relevant to mention here that the Office of the Superintendent of Police is also running from the two storey building from Nagar Palika Parishad which constructed in total area of 324 Square Meter. 
 

 

D) It is highly important to mention here that total 28 Police Stations were inexistence at District Etah out of which 10 Police Station are now situated in newly created District Kanshi Ram Nagar, therefore, there was no requirement of any creation of new police station. After the creation of the new district one woman Police Station had also been created and at present the Superintendent of Police is also provided residence at Forest Department Guest House.

5. Prisoner (Jail) Department:-

It is highly important to mention here that the 50 Acre land is also identified for the establishment of new prison at newly created District for which the land of the Veterinary Department at Village Puchlana had been identified for the proposal of the said prison, the Hon'ble Minister of the concerned department had already given the consent.

6. Health Department :-

That at present the District Hospital is running from the newly built Community Health Center, Kashganj in which the Chief Development Officer is running his office. It is relevant to mention here that 7 subordinate posts in the office of Chief Medical Officer had also been created. At present the State Govt. has already sanctioned 100 Bed Hospital at the District level for which 5 crore budged has also been earmarked for the purpose. As per the National Village Health Mission 2009-10, the total amount of Rs. 637.57 Lakhs had also been distributed at the District level. And at present for the better infrastructure for the establishment of District Hospital Govt. has also initiated for acquiring the land."

From the aforesaid statements made on behalf of the State in the supplementary affidavit, it appears that even after two years of creation of district in 2008, the newly created district is neither financially nor infrastructurally equipped. Only recent sanction of budget has been shown. Therefore, according to us, no case has been made out on the part of the State.

We have also gone through the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents on 20th August, 2008 and 18th April, 2009 respectively. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that no abrupt decision has been taken by the State by issuing the impugned notification. Creation and abolition of District/s or Division/s is nothing but a kind of reorganization of territorial administration and/or management of the area of the State for performance of its functions and duties. No body can have any legal right to seek for judicial review in connection with reorganization of the district. It has further been submitted that in 2002 (2) SCC 333 (Balco Employees Union Vs. Union of India) the Supreme Court has held that the Courts should not embark upon the public policy. So far as supplementary counter affidavit filed on 18th April, 2009 is concerned, the State wanted to clarify about the budgetary sanction for creation of district. From Annexure-2 to such supplementary counter affidavit, we find that calculations have been given under the signature of the authority concerned dated 04th March, 2009, according to which the total allocated fund for the financial year 2008-09 is Rs.4,07,22,393.00. Therefore, it can be understood from any common parlance that whether the amount, which has been stated to be allocated in the financial year 2008-09 for such newly created district, is sufficient for the purpose of creation and establishment of new district or not. However, from 2008 to 2010 several statements have been made periodically but no drastic change in respect of budgetary sanction and providing infrastructure has been made to form such district.

Mainly the writ petition has been opposed by two Bar Associations i.e. Kasganj Bar Association, Kasganj, District Kanshi Ram Nagar and Democratic Bar Association, Kasganj, District Kanshi Ram Nagar to protect their interest about creation of the Court. Similar comments can be made in respect of the petitioner also, but at this belated stage when the affidavits are exchanged, we cannot ignore the affidavits of the parties and their submissions in connection with creation of the district. The respondents-Bar Associations have relied upon the judgement of Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh (supra), wherein a three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court observed that in Ram Milan Shukla (supra) this Court (Supreme Court) did not interfere because there was a direction for reconsideration, and distinguishing such case i.e. Ram Milan Shukla (supra) the Supreme Court held that Cabinet's decision was taken nearly eight years back and appears to be operative. Therefore, in matters of policy decisions, the scope of interference of the Court is extremely limited. It must be left to the Government. Lastly, it has been held that 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. However, a Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in 2000 (1) AWC 750 (Brijendra Kumar Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) has been cited by such respondents to show that in such judgement Ram Milan Shukla (supra) has been treated to be not binding precedent so as to refer the case to the larger Bench. It was also held therein that in creation of new district, the Government has already spent lot of money.

Against this background, now let us go through the Full Bench judgement of the Lucknow Bench of this Court dated 21st September, 2012 delivered in Writ Petition No. 10159 (M/B) of 2010 (PIL Civil) (Brij Kishore Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others) and other connected matters. In paragraph-148 of such judgement the Full Bench has summed up the entire issue. Paragraph-148 is as follows:

"148. To sum up:-

(1) Every order passed by the State Government in pursuance of power conferred by Articles 154, 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution, may not be administrative. It shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Similarly, every order passed by the State Government in pursuance of power conferred by statute, may either be legislative or administrative and shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

(2) The order passed under statutory provisions or in pursuance of powers conferred under Articles 154, 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution, may be administrative or legislative or quasi-legislative and quasi-administrative, will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The decision taken by the State Government while deciding representation in pursuance of the order passed by the Court or on its own, keeping in view the 1992, regulatory Government order (supra) ordinarily, shall be administrative in nature.

(3) The impugned notification has been issued while deciding representation in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court based on factual matrix of past and present hence administrative in nature, but it has legislative trapping. However, in case, the State Government took a decision in compliance of different constitutional provisions dealt with (supra) followed by notification under Section 11 of the Act and the Rules of Business, then in such a situation, decision may be of legislative character.

(4) Though, there is no conflict between the Census Act and Census Rules, 1990 with Section 11 of U.P. Land Revenue Act since both deal with the different sphere but once a notification is issued under Census Rule by the Government of India as well as the State Government, then direction under Census Rule, shall prevail over and above the State action under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Since both are irreconcilable during the operation of a notification issued under Rule 8 (4) of Census Rules, 1990, no notification could have been issued under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

(5) The jurisdiction exercised by the Government during census operation and continuance of notification issued under Section 8 (4) of Census Rules, the power exercised by the Government under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, shall be illegal and void hence all consequential action therein shall also not survive. Of course, it shall be open for the Government to issue a notification to meet out exigency of services within the constitutional frame and four corners of the law after census operation.

(6). In the event of order passed under Rule 1990 during the continuance of census operation, the State Government may not exercise power conferred by Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in a manner which may amount to change of boundaries of district or local bodies. Power under the Census Act and the Rules framed thereunder, as well as power conferred under Section 11 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act cannot be exercised simultaneously, because there is irreconcilable conflict between the two legislative action of the State Government and the Central Government.

(7) Moreover, the SLP filed against the judgment in the case of Ram Milan Shukla (supra) was consciously dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court hence it is binding in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No contrary finding may be recorded by the High Court in view of binding precedent. Otherwise also, judgment in Ram Milan Shukla's case (supra) lays down correct law.

(8) Section 11 of the Act does not lay down the grounds or criteria for creation of districts. Government has rightly issued the Government order 1992 (supra) to fill up the gap, providing grounds for the creation of District. Government order 1992 (supra) supplements the statutory provision (Section 11) conferring power on Chairman, Board of Revenue (supra), for compliance, hence binding."

Out of the aforesaid summed up points, Point No. 7 is very relevant, whereunder it has been held that the special leave petition filed against the judgement in the case of Ram Milan Shukla (supra) was consciously dismissed by the Supreme Court, hence it is binding in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. No contrary finding may be recorded by the High Court in view of the binding precedent. Otherwise also, the judgement in Ram Milan Shukla (supra) lays down correct law.

So far as Ram Milan Shukla (supra) is concerned, we find that in Paragraph-18 thereof the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 09th November, 1998 and directed the State Government to reconsider the matter and decide whether there was any good administrative and financial ground to issue the notification dated 05th September, 1997 for creation of District Sant Kabir Nagar or not. From such judgement, we find that the judgement was delivered on 15th January, 1999 as against the notifications dated 05th September, 1997 and 09th November, 1998.

Therefore, two very pertinent questions are under consideration before this Court:

(a) Whether the Court will interfere with a policy decision of the State Government following the notification dated 17th April, 2008 having binding effect of the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Brij Kishore Verma (supra) holding Ram Milan Shukla (supra), whereunder the notification in respect of creation of new District carving out old district has been quashed by the Division Bench, as correct law, or not?

(b) Whether delay is one of the parameters for not passing any order in respect of the policy decision of carving out and forming of new district in view of the three Judges' Bench judgement of the Supreme Court in Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh (supra)?

According to us, both the three Judges' Bench judgements of the Supreme Court and this Court i.e. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh (supra) and Brij Kishore Verma (supra) respectively have a binding effect upon us. It is true to say that in a policy decision, like creation of district, normally the Courts should not interfere. But the ratio of Ram Milan Shukla (supra) says that such creation will be done only when necessary budget will be provided and infrastructure will be made before notifying the revenue district, otherwise it will create serious anomaly and difficulty to the residents of the district. On the other hand, three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh (supra) has held that after long lapse of eight years' period from the date of notification, it will not be proper to quash the notification and also indicated about Ram Milan Shukla (supra) that there is a distinguishing feature between these two and, therefore, in such matter the notification was not quashed. However, the larger Bench of this High Court has sent the matter back to the concerned Bench for consideration of the issue.

In the present case, though there is lapse of four years' period from the date of issuance of notification but we are not satisfied as yet with regard to allocation and use of necessary budget and providing of infrastructure. So far as budget is concerned, it has been stated on behalf of the State that such budget is sanctioned but we do not find any answer as to whether the budgetary allocation has reached to the district for the purpose of proper use or not. So far as infrastructure is concerned, only the process for acquisition of land has been started. None of the references as given in the counter affidavit or other affidavits of the State can be construed as a very happy situation for the purpose of creation of new district.

Against this background, we are of the view that the purpose will be subserved if we grant a reasonable time to the State Government to complete the infrastructure and use the budgetary sanction, that too not in a periodic or phase manner but at a time considering the case as emergent one. For such purpose, we direct the State Government to complete the course of action within the next financial year, which will come to an end by 31st March, 2014. If it is not completed within the aforesaid period, the impugned notification dated 17th April, 2008, being annexure-1 to the writ petition, issued by the State Government for creation of District Kanshi Ram Nagar will automatically stand quashed. We hope and trust that all the works will be started and completed within this period on war footing.

Accordingly, the first writ petition is disposed of, however, without any order as to costs.

So far as second writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 46428 of 2010 is concerned, this writ petition has been preferred seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the notification dated 17th April, 2008, whereby a new district has been created in the name of Kanshi Ram Nagar. A further direction has also been sought for upon the Election Commissioner not to interfere with the functions of the Zila Panchayat, Etah.

A brief reference of the facts would suffice. In the elections for Zila Panchayat, Etah held sometimes in October, 2005, the petitioner in this writ petition was elected as Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, Etah. He was administered oath of the office on 18th February, 2006 and after assuming the office on the same day, the petitioner was functioning on such post. On 17th April, 2008 the State Government issued a notification, whereby a new district, namely, Kanshi Ram Nagar has been carved out of district Etah. Against this background, the petitioner filed this writ petition for the aforementioned reliefs. When the writ petition was entertained by this Court on 06th August, 2010, an order of status quo was passed as regards the office of Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Etah on the ground that the aforesaid notification dated 17th April, 2008 has been challenged by way of Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) No. 22757 of 2008 (Collectorate Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and others), and further this writ petition was connected with such public interest litigation. Said interim order was modified on 19th August, 2010, however, the status quo order was continued.

So far as the aforesaid connected public interest litigation i.e. first writ petition is concerned, we have disposed of the same with the certain directions as given herein-above.

In this writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents i.e. respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the present writ petition is not maintainable being second one as the petitioner has already got the process of election stayed in another writ petition filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court, being Writ Petition No. 6739 (M/B) of 2008 (Joginder Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others). It is stated that the last election of the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Etah was held in the year 2006 and the tenure of such election came to an end on 14th January, 2011. Two separate notifications dated 21st May, 2008 each have been issued showing the Gram Panchayats of each district. The Joint Commissioner, State Election Commission vide communication dated 23rd August, 2010 has informed the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow regarding the proposed schedule of the elections of Pradhans of Gram Panchayats, Members of the Gram Panchayats, Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats. Copy of such communication regarding proposed scheduled elections has been placed on record by the respondents as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Article 243 E of the Constitution of India, which provides that the term of every panchayat shall continue for five years from the date appointed for the first meeting and no longer. The said provision has also been incorporated and adopted under Section 12(3)(a) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 for Gram Panchayats.

Against this background, we are of the view that in view of the aforesaid factual and legal submissions and also the directions issued by this Court in the first writ petition i.e. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 22757 of 2008 (supra), as above, no relief can be granted in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 06th August, 2010, as modified on 19th August, 2010, stands vacated. The State Government and the State Election Commission are directed to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and in the light of the directions issued in the aforesaid public interest litigation.

No order is passed as to costs.

(Justice Amitava Lala, ACJ)

I agree.

(Justice Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel)

Dated: 18th October, 2012.

SKT/-

Hon'ble Amitava Lala, Acting Chief Justice.

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.

Under the authority of the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice additional cause list has been printed for the purpose of delivery of judgement and the same has been delivered at 02.00 P.M. in the Court upon notice to the parties.

The writ petition is disposed of, however, without any order as to costs.

Dt./- 18.10.2012.

SKT/-

For order, see order of the date passed on the separate sheets (seventeen pages).

Dt./-18.10.2012.

SKT/-