Dwarka Court Bar Association vs Hon???Ble Lt. Governor Of Delhi & ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1154 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of decision: 9th February, 2015

+                               W.P.(C) No.6852/2014

       DWARKA COURT BAR ASSOCIATION           ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Sr. Adv. with
                           Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Mr. Dinesh
                           Mudgil, Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Mr. Sunil
                           Sherawat, Mr. Avnish Rana & Mr.
                           Shekhar Kumar, Advs.

                                   Versus

    HON'BLE LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR... Respondents

Through: Ms. Zubeda Begum & Ms. Sana Ansari, Advs.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW +

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a

Public Interest Litigation (PIL), impugns the Minutes dated 23rd July, 2014 of

the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the respondent No.1 regarding re-

organization of Revenue Districts and seeks a direction to the respondents i.e.

Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and the Government of National Capital

Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) to implement the recommendations dated 9 th

September, 2013 made by the Committee constituted by the GNCTD and

revived vide order dated 7th January, 2013 of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.7722/2014.

2. It is inter alia the case of the petitioner:

(a) that vide order dated 1st May, 2000 of the Supreme Court in W.P.(C)

No.741/1989, Delhi was ordered to be divided into nine separate Civil

Districts;

(b) that Notification dated 28th June, 2000 was issued in this regard and as

per which the territorial limits of the nine Civil Districts of i) New Delhi,

ii) South, iii) North, iv) North-West, v) Central, vi) East, vii) North-East,

viii) West, and, ix) South-West, was to be co-terminus with the existing

nine Revenue Areas known as Revenue Districts;

(c) vide Notification dated 21st October, 2008, the specific boundaries of the

nine Civil Districts were re-defined;

(d) that vide Code of Criminal Procedure (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2011,

Section 8(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was amended,

empowering the GNCTD to bifurcate the metropolitan area of Delhi into

nine separate metropolitan areas and the consequent creation of nine

separate Sessions Divisions;

(e) that vide Notification dated 11th September, 2012, eleven Districts /

Sessions Divisions were created by altering and modifying the limits of

the existing Sub-Divisions / Tehsils;

(f) that the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7722/2012 contending that the

Notification dated 11th September, 2012 caused great hardship to the

people of South-West District and was contrary to the principle of justice

at door step; it was the contention of the petitioner that some of the areas

which are nearer to Dwarka Court Complex had vide the said notification

been shifted to a far away Court complex;

(g) that it was the stand of the GNCTD in the said writ petition that the

representation earlier made by the petitioner in this regard had been

forwarded to the convener of the Committee on the basis of the

recommendation whereof the areas comprising each of the eleven

Revenue Districts were determined; however it was found that the said

Committee had become functus officio and therefore no decision could

be taken on the representation of the petitioner; it was also contended by

the GNCTD that the said Committee was required to be revived and

thereafter only any decision on the representation of the petitioner could

be taken;

(h) this Court vide order dated 7th January, 2013 in W.P.(C) No.7722/2012

earlier filed by the petitioner directed that ".... the Government shall

revive the Committee and the representation of the petitioner association

made on 19.9.2012 shall be considered ......The respondent will then take

appropriate decision on the recommendations of the said Committee";

(i) however on 19th February, 2013, this Court by an administrative order

created 11 Judicial Districts in NCT of Delhi and which resulted in six

police stations i.e. Inderpuri, Naraina, Delhi Cantt, Sagarpur, IGI and IGI

Metro which were part of the South-West District being taken away from

Dwarka District Courts and shifted to New Delhi District i.e. at Patiala

House Courts, New Delhi;

(j) that these police stations are situated in close proximity to the Dwarka

Court Complex and far away from the Patiala House Courts;

(k) that the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.1216/2013 impugning the aforesaid;

during the hearing of the said writ petition on 25th February, 2013, this

Court found that the earlier order dated 7th January, 2013 had remained

unimplemented till then; accordingly, vide order dated 25 th February,

2013, the Committee which vide order dated 7th January, 2013 (supra)

had been ordered to be revived was directed to be revived within a

maximum period of two weeks therefrom and it was further directed that

the said Committee would examine the representation of the petitioner

including by inviting suggestions from various bar associations and take

a decision within six weeks therefrom;

(l) that the Committee was revived and which considered the representations

of the various bar associations as well as the comments of the Revenue

Departments and Delhi Police and submitted a report recommending

exclusion of the eight Revenue villages of i) Budhela, ii) Nangli Jalib, iii)

Posangipur, iv) Asalatpur, v) Hastsal, vi) Rajapur Khurd, vii) Nawada

Mazra Hastsal, and, viii) Matiala situated in close vicinity of Dwarka

Court Complex from West District and inclusion thereof in the South-

West District;

(m) that the aforesaid recommendations of the Committee were considered in

the meeting (supra) held on 23rd July, 2014 and the relevant portion of

the Minutes whereof is as under:

"Hon'ble Lt. Governor expressed his displeasure at the incomplete proposal and not taking the views of the villagers / residents of the areas, in this regard. Hon'ble Lt. Governor was of the opinion that the Committee should be chaired by a Secretary from GNCT of Delhi, having as its members, the Divisional Commissioner, concerned Dy. Commissioners, representative of Delhi Police and other stakeholders of the Terms of Reference of the Committee should be properly drafted. Chief Secretary shall issue necessary orders, Hon'ble Lt. Governor instructed Law Department to keep the proposal in abeyance, for the time being.

The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair."

3. It is the contention of the petitioner:

(i) that the decision aforesaid taken in the meeting held on 23rd July, 2014 is

in violation of the orders in the earlier writ petitions filed by the

petitioner;

(ii) that inspite of this Court in the said orders expressing urgency, the

respondents caused delay at each and every stage;

(iii) that the action of the respondents of holding the recommendations of the

Committee in abeyance and directing constitution of a fresh Committee

is causing grave and substantial loss of public interest to residents of the

eight villages aforesaid who have to transverse a distance of

approximately 15 to 20 kms. in case of litigations i.e. to Tis Hazari Court

when Dwarka Court Complex is situated within a distance of 3 to 5 kms.;

(iv) that the Dwarka Court Complex is also accessible to the residents of the

said villages through the Blue Line of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation;

(v) that the infrastructure available at Dwarka District Courts is far better

than what is available at the other District Courts;

(vi) that the reason given for not accepting the recommendations i.e. of the

views of the residents of the said eight villages having not been taken by

the Committee is ambiguous and cryptic;

(vii) that the reason given in the decision dated 23 rd July, 2014 of the views of

the residents of the said eight villages having not been taken is also

fallacious because the said residents had not been consulted even at the

time of their inclusion in the West District;

(viii) that this Court having directed the representation of the petitioner to be

considered by the Committee earlier constituted, by reviving the same,

the respondents could not after receiving the recommendations of the

said revived Committee, constitute another Committee;

(ix) that the respondents are withholding the decision on the representation of

the petitioner on flimsy grounds, solely to put the issue on the

backburner; and

(x) that in the meanwhile, the new infrastructure created at the Dwarka Court

Complex is lying under-utilized.

4. The petition came up for hearing on 1st October, 2014 when the counsel

for the respondents appearing on advance notice sought time to get instructions

about the steps if any taken pursuant to the impugned Minutes dated 23rd July,

2014.

5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating:

(a) that the revived Committee had recommended the aforesaid eight

Revenue Areas / villages of the West District to be taken out of the Patel

Nagar Sub-Division of West District and to be added to the Dwarka Sub-

Division of South-West District;

(b) that approval of the Finance Department, GNCTD was solicited and they

had given their no objection thereto if no financial implications were

entailed;

(c) that accordingly, a proposal in this regard was prepared for placing the

same before the Council of Ministers of the Legislative Assembly of

Delhi;

(d) that however before the said proposal could be considered, the

Legislative Assembly of Delhi was suspended consequent to the

resignation of the Chief Minister;

(e) that hence the proposal was directly submitted to the Lieutenant

Governor and the comments of the Principal Secretary, Revenue-cum-

Divisional Commissioner invited;

(f) that the District Magistrate (West) vide his comments agreed in-principle

of transferring above mentioned eight revenue estates out of Patel Nagar

Sub-Division of West District and adding these areas to the Dwarka Sub-

Division of West Delhi but further proposed that the remaining of the 31

revenue estates falling under the West District revenue estate be also re-

distributed to rationalize the workload on the revenue authorities working

in the three sub-divisions of Punjabi Bagh, Patel Nagar and Rajouri

Garden;

(g) that a proposal in this regard was also prepared;

(h) that however the Lieutenant Governor in the meeting held on 23 rd July,

2014 observed that the proposal was incomplete and the views of the

villagers / residents of the areas concerned were not taken by the

Committee and directed that a fresh Committee to be constituted;

(i) that a fresh Committee was accordingly constituted vide letter dated 24 th

September, 2014 with direction to submit report within three months;

(j) that the said fresh Committee has a wider representation at a

comparatively higher / senior level.

6. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid counter affidavit but

need to advert thereto is not felt.

7. We heard the counsels on 11th and 18th December, 2014 and reserved

judgment.

8. Since the stand of the counsel for the respondents was that newly

constituted Committee was expected to submit its report on 24 th December,

2014, we directed the respondents to place the same also on record on or before

31st December, 2014. However the same was not placed on record. The

counsel for the respondents upon being reminded has on 28 th January, 2015

handed over some papers as per which the newly constituted Committee vide

letter dated 5th December, 2014 has requested for extension of time for another

three months from 24th December, 2014 for furnishing the report.

9. We had during the hearing enquired whether any of the other bar

associations, particularly the Bar Association of Tis Hazari Courts from whose

territorial jurisdiction the said eight villages have been recommended to be

shifted to the Dwarka Court territorial jurisdiction, have any objection to the

said report.

10. We were told that they have no objection.

11. We similarly enquired whether any of the villagers had protested. Again

the answer was in the negative.

12. We have given our thought to the matter.

13. Though undoubtedly, the re-organization of districts is an executive

function but at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that vide order dated 7th

January, 2013 in W.P.(C) No.7722/2012 earlier filed by the petitioner and

which order is in the nature of a consent order, it was directed that the

representation made by the petitioner be considered by the old Committee by

revival thereof and that the respondents will take appropriate decision on the

basis of the recommendations of the said Committee. Again vide order dated

25th February, 2013 in W.P.(C) No.1216/2013 earlier filed by the petitioner, the

earlier order dated 7th January, 2013 was reiterated and the time schedule for

taking action thereunder was prescribed. Though the respondents, if of the

opinion that the matter should be considered by a new Committee instead of by

reviving the old Committee or that the views of the villagers likely to the

affected be also taken into consideration, had an opportunity to state so on 25 th

February, 2013 but again did not do so.

14. Though the respondents are not bound by the recommendations so made

by the revived Committee but still when a Committee is constituted to make

recommendations, ordinarily, its recommendations are to be accepted unless

there are valid reasons for not accepting the said recommendations; else, the

very purpose of constituting an expert Committee would be lost.

15. The Supreme Court in S. Chandramohan Nair Vs. George Joseph

(2010) 12 SCC 687, in the context of appointment to the post of member of a

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and which appointment was to

be made by the State Government on the recommendation of the Selection

Committee, held that though the State Government is not bound to accept the

recommendations by the Selection Committee but if it does not want to accept

the recommendations, then reasons for doing so, have to be recorded and the

State Government cannot arbitrarily ignore or reject the recommendations of

the Selection Committee. Similarly in Union of India Vs. N.P. Dhamania

1995 Supp. (1) SCC 1 held that appointing authority can choose to differ from

the recommendations but must give the reasons for the same. A Division

Bench of this Court in Akashvani & Doorshan Administrative Staff

Association Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1641/2002 applied the said

principle to the recommendations of the Pay Commission also and held that

though the Central Government is not bound to accept the said

recommendations but it is also beyond any cavil of doubt that such

recommendations having been made by an expert committee are ordinarily

required to be accepted, unless there exists a cogent and compelling reason

therefore.

16. In M/s. Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 223 it

was observed that whether an order was characterized as legislative or

administrative or quasi-judicial, or whether it was determination of law or fact,

the judgment of the expert body, entrusted with the power is generally treated

as final.

17. The Supreme Court in M.V. Thimmaiah Vs. Union Public Service

Commission (2008 ) 2 SCC 119 reiterated that normally the recommendations

of the Selection Committee cannot be challenged even in a Court except on the

ground of mala fides or serious violation of statutory rules. To the same effect

is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joint Action Council of Service

Doctors' Organisations Vs. Union of India (1996 ) 7 SCC 256.

18. Even in academic matters the principle is that the decision of the experts

is not to be lightly interfered with. Reference if any required can be made to the

The University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 and to Km.

Nelima Misra vs. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal (1990) 2 SCC 746.

19. In our opinion the said principle can appropriately be extended to the

present situation also.

20. From the record as well as the counter affidavit of the respondents, it

transpires that the recommendations of the revived Committee are acceptable to

all concerned. The Minutes of the Meeting held on 23rd July, 2014 in which the

said aspect was considered also, though record the displeasure and observation

of the Lieutenant Governor that the proposal put up before him was incomplete,

but does not describe as to what was incomplete therein nor are any particulars

in this regard given in the counter affidavit. The only reason given is of the

views of the villagers/residents of the area having not been taken.

21. The respondents however did not controvert the specific plea of the

petitioner that the villagers / residents of the areas to be comprised in each

district were not consulted on the earlier occasion also. It belies logic, when

they were not earlier consulted, why the need for consulting them should now

be felt.

22. We also do not know as to how the said villagers / residents are to be

consulted; is it to be by holding a plebiscite? We remind the respondents that

all the Gaon Panchayats (which administered the Gaon Sabhas under the Delhi

Land Reforms Act, 1954) in Delhi were superseded by the Administrator, Delhi

vide Notification dated 25th January, 1990 and all duties, powers and functions

of the Gaon Panchayat were to be exercised, performed by the Dy.

Commissioner (See Jogender Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi W.P.(C)

No.5393/2007 of this Court decided by the Division Bench on 7 th May, 2010).

On decentralization of Delhi, first into nine and then eleven districts, vide

Notifications dated 25th June, 1997 and 8th January, 2004, such duties are to be

performed by Dy. Commissioners of the concerned district. No elections have

been held of the Gaon Panchayats as yet. The counter affidavit also does not

state as to how the newly constituted Committee intends to go about the process

of consulting the villagers. The concerned revenue officials i.e. the Dy.

Commissioners have already been consulted.

23. The reason thus given for not accepting the recommendations of the

earlier Committee constituted and revived under orders of the Court and for

constituting a fresh Committee is thus indeed no reason.

24. However the fact remains that the decision has to be taken by the

respondents and this Court cannot appropriate to itself an executive function.

Thus the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is, to set aside the

decision taken on the Meeting dated 23rd July, 2014 and to direct the

respondents to now consider the report submitted by the revived Committee

and to take a decision thereon on or before 31st March, 2015. We have given

such long time for the reason that the elections to the Legislative Assembly of

Delhi are now scheduled to be held on 7 th February, 2015 and some time may

be taken thereafter for the new dispensation to come in place. It appears that

earlier also, it was the said Legislative Assembly which was to take the

decision and the matter had to be considered by the respondent No.1 only for

the reason of the Legislative Assembly having been suspended.

The petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 9, 2015 „gsr‟