Rajasthan High Court
Bhairu Lal Choudhary Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Prakash Gupta, Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil PIL (Writ Petition) No. 8929/2022
1. Bhairu Lal Choudhary Son of Shri Ganesh Narayan,
Resident of Mohanpura Ranwa, Tehsil Phagi, Jaipur,
Rajasthan- 303005.
2. Gopi Lal Bairwa Son of Shri Chatra Bairwa, Resident of
45, Tehsil Phagi, Mohanpura Ranwa, Jaipur, Rajasthan-
303005.
3. Bodu Ram Son of Shri Madho, Resident of Village Keriya,
Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary Cum Special Secretary To The
Government, Revenue Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. District Collector, District Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur
(Raj.)
5. Tehsildar, Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Bairwa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
01/08/2022
(Per: Anoop Kumar Dhand, J)
Without challenging the impugned Notification dated
19.05.2022, instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with
the following prayer:-
(2 of 5) [CW-8929/2022]
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and
allow this PIL (writ petition) and further be pleased to:-
I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof
thereby direct the respondents to exclude the Patwar
Mandal Mandi and Hatheli from the newly created Sub
Tehsil Nimeda, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur and to remain
the same in Tehsil Phagi as it is;
II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof
thereby direct the respondents to establish the newly
created Sub Tehsil Nimeda at the Khasra No. 2545/3
instead of Khasra No. 3384/3365 (nearby Border of District
Tonk).
III) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may
also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1
has issued a Notification on 19.05.2022 to create a new Sub Tehsil
Nimeda, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur for reconstituting Tehsil Phagi
of District Jaipur. Counsel submits that by creation of new Sub
Tehsil Nimeda, the people of Village Hatheli and other villages will
face great difficulties as there is no direct transport facility to
reach a newly created Tehsil as the distance of Nimeda is almost
35 Km from the border of Tonk District. Counsel submits that
under these circumstances appropriate directions be issued to
exclude the Patwar Mandal Mandi and Hatheli from the newly
created Sub Tehsil Nimeda, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur and the
same be kept in Tehsil Phagi. Counsel further submits that the
respondent No.1 be directed to establish a new Sub Tehsil at
Khasra No.2545/3 instead of the land situated in Khasra No.
3384/3365.
Heard and considered the arguments.
(3 of 5) [CW-8929/2022]
It is the settled law that the matter regarding creation of
Tehsil or Sub Tehsil is the domain of the Government and its
functionaries and unless and until it is demonstrated that there is
flagrant violation of any provision of law/rules in the action of the
authorities or it suffer from mala fides, no interference is
permissible in such administrative matters while exercising powers
of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court on number of
occasions that policy decisions of the State should not be
disturbed unless and until they are found to be grossly arbitrary or
irrational. The Court should not interfere with the policy decisions
of the authorities unless and until the same can be faulted on the
grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness and
unfairness.
It is trite that the Courts would be slow in interfering in the
policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably
discriminatory and arbitrary. This court would not interfere with
the policy decision when a State is in a position to point out that
there is intelligible differentia in application of policy and such
intelligible differentia has a nexus with the object sought to be
achieved.
In the case of Directorate of Film Festivals Vs. Gaurav
Ashwin Jain, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 737, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the scope of judicial review of governmental policy
is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate
Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and
appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts advisors to the
executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to
formulate.
(4 of 5) [CW-8929/2022]
The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the
government is true check whether it violates the fundamental
rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the
Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or is
manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on
the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better,
fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and
not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of
judicial review. The scope of judicial review in policy matters is no
longer res integra.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "J.R. Raghupathy
Vs. State of A.P. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 364" has observed
as under:
"31. We find it rather difficult to sustain the
judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where
it has interfered with the location of Mandal
Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications
on the ground that the Government acted in breach of
the guidelines in that one place or the other was more
centrally located or that location at the other place
would promote general public convenience, or that the
headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a
view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location
of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the
final notification under subsection (5) of Section 3 of
the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-
Committee of the proposals submitted by the Collectors
concerned and the objections and suggestions received
from the local authorities like the Gram Panchayats and
the general public. Even assuming that the Government
while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet
Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters
should be at place 'X' rather than place 'Y' as
(5 of 5) [CW-8929/2022]
recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular
case, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the
nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which
were nothing more than administrative instructions not
having any statutory force, which did not give rise to
any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners".
A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sher
Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in
1995 (6) SCC 515 has observed thus:-
"As a matter of fact the courts would be slow in
interfering with matters of government policy except
where it is shown that the decision is unfair, mala fide or
contrary to any statutory directions."
Apart from above, the petitioners have not challenged the
validity of the Notification dated 19.05.2022 by which the
impugned decision was taken by the Government. Unless and until
a challenge to the said Notification is made, the petitioners are
otherwise also not entitled to get any relief.
In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the decision of the respondents. The petition is
dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J
Sharma NK/17
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
